Forum:Reorganise the Discord
I'd like to propose some changes to the organisation of our Discord server.
Currently the server works well for people who are working in a meta way: the channels are split into game related and wiki related sections, which suits experienced editors who are working across the wikis. However I am doubtful that is the best organisation for most editors, as I think that most RuneScape players and a significant number of editors are only active on one game/wiki. The current organisation doesn't make it easy for most people to see the channels that are relevant to them.
I am also concerned that our server seems not to be attractive for new people to get involved in. Perhaps this is simply a fact of being a large server, but we have a large number of people in the Discord but only a regular minority engage in the chat in any meaningful way. The current organisation puts most emphasis on game related channels and I'd argue that this is not what we want to be focusing on. If people want to chat about the games they can go to the official servers which already do this better than we can. I feel that our Discord should focus more on the wikis and attracting new people to editing.
To achieve this I am proposing the following:
Proposal 1: reorganisation of categories and channels[edit source]
I would like to see the categories/channels organised this way (in brackets proposed channel name changes):
- wiki-lounge (linked-account-lounge)
- osrs (osrs-game)
- wiki-osrs (osrs-wiki)
- oswf-osrs (osrs-oswf)
- rs (rs-game)
- wiki-rs (rs-wiki)
- oswf-rs (rs-oswf)
- wiki-pt-br (pt-br-wiki)
- API (no change)
- Wiki private (no change)
- Weird Gloop (no change)
- Off-topic (no change)
- Voice (no change)
- Bots (no change, except moving it down the category order)
- Archives (no change)
As a TL:DR: channels would be categorised by which game they relate to; combining the general game chat with the wiki channel(s) and any wiki-specific projects channels. The meta category would continue to include more high-level, technical projects that span across wikis and that are less accessible to new editors. I would suggest moving the off-topic and voice channels above bots as these are of more interest to newer users for socialising, whereas bots is mostly used by experience editors for moderation etc.
I think this order would be beneficial for the majority of users to be able to easily view channels that are most relevant to them. Combined with renaming, it would make it easier for people to find the correct channel to seek out editing help (currently we get a lot of people asking for this in the wrong channels). By placing related game and wiki chats together I'd hope we'd nudge more people into editing (maybe even into working on wiki projects if they notice a dedicated help channel).
Proposal 2: update the welcome channel[edit source]
The welcome channel has several different messages in at this point and I think we should combine them into one message and update it to be more helpful. I'd suggest using this text:
"Welcome to the official Discord server for the OSRS and RS3 wikis. You can find a full description of all the channels on this wiki page but our main topics are: #osrs (general chat about OSRS), #wiki-osrs (discussion about the OSRS wiki), #rs (general chat about RS3), and #wiki-rs (discussion about the RS3 wiki). If you need help with your wiki account from an administrator please ask in #wiki-tech.
You can obtain additional roles by using the following reactions:
- link: Link your Discord and wiki accounts using the instructions [add information to the Discord page and link that | here] and gain access to the higher-priority Linked Wiki Account role and #linked-account-lounge channel
- elefint: Off-topic channels: gain access to the off-topic section
- dungeoneering: Events: be notified every time there is a new event (or one is about to start) by the wiki Events Team (RS3)
- computer: Real-time RuneLite GE price API: receive updates on changes to the wikis' API
- bond: RS wiki OSWF: be notified about new tasks in the #rs-oswf programme"
Proposal 3: archive some inactive channels[edit source]
The following channels are no longer really being used and I suggest that they be archived:
1 and 2, neutral on 3 - Proposal 1 and 2 look good, only comment I have is that I prefer using RS over RS3, but I can see it being needed unfortunately. As for proposal 3, I don't have anything with those osrs channels, so I'm neutral on those. As for linguists, it's probably better to archive that as it's been inactive for quite a while now. Perhaps it can be unarchived when that project becomes active again. Is that even a thing, unarchiving? 13:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1 - Organizing the server by game doesn't really work, either for new people or experienced people:
- There are a bunch of channels that don't fit neatly into one game or the other (in fact, actually the majority of game-relevant channels don't). You're using a "meta" category to kinda include "everything that doesn't fit neatly into one game or another", but it's just sort of a black hole of projects you couldn't categorize better, other games like rsc, and actual important meta channels. You say "The meta category would continue to include more high-level, technical projects that span across wikis and that are less accessible to new editors" but that's not really true – you just put the projects that don't fit into a game into the meta category, without regard for which ones are accessible. In reality, drop-logs and update-history are probably the two most accessible projects we have right now.
- Currently, the first five talkable channels people see on the server are the most generally relevant: general, rs, osrs, wiki-rs and wiki-osrs. It is relatively clear (or at least as clear as we can get from naming) what each of these mean, and the most important ones are first. Under your proposal, all of the RuneScape-related channels get pushed down by whatever OSRS projects are active, as well as the osrs-oswf channel which is going to have things to do maybe 10% of the time. This is not an improvement.
- Having #general in its own category by itself, as the first category and standalone channel (if you don't link your account, which 99% of new people won't) will just lead to more game talk in #general, when really we should be pushing those people either into specific channels or out of the server entirely.
- This doesn't improve/reduce the number of categories people need to keep open and pay attention to. It just fragments relevant pieces further away from a sensible grouping. ʞooɔ 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that the channels don't fit well like this. The channels I'm proposing putting into the meta category do fit in the category of "high-level, technical projects that span across wikis and that are less accessible to new editors". I'm not sure why you're saying drop-logs and update-history are accessible? As far as I know drop-logs is not actively in progress (at least for RS3 where we haven't really found a way to advance the project) nor is update history (again, based on my knowledge of RS3 the stage of implementing the addition of patch notes to pages is complete). If I, as an experienced editor, am looking at these channels and can't see what there is to get involved in then how are these accessible as projects to new editors? I'm classing projects as things more like how we have historically had clearly defined projects with documentation of what needs doing on the maintenance pages. Those channels at the moment are more general (meta) discussion about ideas on how to move the projects forward or random questions about specific updates/drop rates that I don't see as particularly relevant to new editors. Rsc wiki is maintained by a core group of regular editors with input from experienced editors working across the wikis. As the game is no longer accessible to players I'm not seeing how new editors could get into working on the wiki - again this is more of a meta/closed project than something that is relevant to new people. IsobelJ (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that justification really doesn't make sense. #drop-logs at this point is primarily for new people (not a closed group of editors) to submit info about drop tables for new updates, and #update-history, when active, is mostly a companion to when we run UH OSWF tasks. It takes a pretty big leap to decide that these are particularly more advanced or inaccessible than linguists, blog archiving, PvP, or graphical updates/scenery that you proposed in your sandbox (which, by the way, would probably be much better served as a combined channel for all wikis, since there's tremendous overlap in what needs to be done). It's just not persuasive to pretend like those projects in the meta category are more complicated, because there's a much simpler explanation. ʞooɔ 21:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- And RSC Wiki actually has a number of new-ish people contributing. I'm not sure what you're basing that on. ʞooɔ 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Rsc wiki is maintained by a core group of regular editors with input from experienced editors working across the wikis." Actually, we're slowly starting to build a community of people who are actually enthousiastic about RSC - be it as they believe the things they loved should be preserved, people interested in the core workings of RS, original lore, whatever. There's more reasons to join in documenting a game than accessibility to RSC. --Zorak PlorakTalk the RuneScape Classic lover 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Alternative 1, Support 2 and 3 - While I'd like to reorganise the server, I was thinking something more along the lines of this. It'd be a small change but leads to slightly less vertical space taken up for editors that only edit for 1 wiki and avoids the issue of either rs3 or osrs categories being pushed down by additional projects for either wiki. It also wouldn't be moving a frequently used category that on osw is the vast majority of our cvu -bots- below off-topic channels. I'm not opposed to splitting things even further, like grouping bot channels per-game and having a meta bots category for meta and rsc rc and the general bots channel, or grouping projects by wiki, but then you need a meta projects cat too, but I think just this would be a good start. 04:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, if the bots category gets moved below the irrelevant off-topic channels and projects gets merged with wiki channels and general channels with option 1, I am Hard Opposed 23:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Support #1 and #2. Support #3 only if #1 is passed, or if the projects are truly done - Your reasons for channel consolidation is persuasive, and the proposed arrangement is logical. Your proposal does not have a dedicated projects section, but rather has the project under the respective game (or meta) category. Way to bring projects right to the forefront! The proposed update to the welcome channel is effectual towards the idea of consolidation. Fully support on both (Proposals #1 and #2).
I am, however, reserved about archiving projects for being inactive or having low activity. There should be a decision that work is being halted or paused before archiving a project, because by archiving you are effectively confirming the project to be closed for the foreseeable future. Of course, any user can pick up the project again as a passion project. However, without first knowing about it, this is a very unlikely scenario. That being said, if Proposal 1 goes through, then all these projects - inactive or not - are now at the forefront. We want the Discord users to see the active projects, and not be concerned or disheartened at a number of low activity or inactive projects. If Proposal #1 is passed, I am in full support of #3. Otherwise, I believe these low activity/inactive projects should only be archived if the projects are truly done (or at least, done for now). Sir Veylantz (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1, support 2+3 - I like having the ability to collapse the entire projects section. Definitely oppose moving the bots section below off-topic and voice, considering how much use it gets on the osrs side. Updating the welcome channel and archiving inactive projects seem like a no brainer. If we need the channels again, we can just move them back up. -Towelcat (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1, conditional support 2, support 3 - Regarding 1: Honestly, I think that the current top-order of channels is currently quite okay. As in: I would argue that people are able to see the channels that are relevant to them. It's clear that people can chat about playing RuneScape or Oldschool RuneScape, and have some basic wiki discussion. The most important projects to newer users - oswf and drop-logs, to a certain extent, are up top. By moving all OSRS channels above the RS channels or vice versa a "problem" similar to the current situation would be created, this time by creating a feeling that OSRS stuff should be up top, while RS3 stuff shouldn't. I don't think this proposal will help a lot in the "real" problem - retaining users.
This being said, you also argue that if "people want to chat about the games they can go to the official servers which already do this better than we can". I think there's a flaw in this thinking - the RS wiki is not just a community of people who like to analyze and write about a game, but also a community of players who like to play the game. It is important for the rs wiki discord to have game chats, because, quite frankly, that is part of what eventually builds a community and eventually keeps contributers contributing. I don't think that focusing more on wiki editing will make more than the regular minority engage more frequently than they do now. This would probably require more community oriented events, to draw people in the community first - and then get them into editing.
With regards to wiki-rsc, I would probably not sort that under meta if this were to be implemented somehow. As it's about the oldest version of the base game and early rs history, I would argue that it probably fits best under it's direct descendant, RuneScape 3.
Regarding 2: I'd say.. at least include the portuguese RS wiki in there as well. I can get how RSC isn't in there ;-).
Regarding 3: Archiving is important. However, I would also say it may be necessary to create some "project round up" process, in which a project is ended on the wiki and a channel is archived directly. --Zorak PlorakTalk the RuneScape Classic lover 22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Soft support 1, support 2, support 3 - I soft support ordering by game for the sake of easier categorization of channels, but from a wiki point of view I don't think it answers the question of what our Discord server should actually be used for. The server isn't really dedicated to discussing the individual games (even though we facilitate such discussion), so realistically the focus should be on wiki-related stuff. Channels like #recent-changes are important and should be listed a lot higher in the channel list than they currently are, channels like the One Small Wiki Favour ones aren't really prominent enough if they're bundled in with other things, especially considering that they're probably going to be the most popular channels on our server among new users. So again, I don't think that sorting by game really helps us with this (which is why I can't fully support it), but I can see on the other hand how it may be useful to categorise by game for people only interested in specific games or wikis, and it means no scrolling back and forth to find channels related to RSW (e.g #recent-changes-rs much further down the list than #wiki-rs). Template:Signatures/JaydenKieran 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Propose Alternative #2 for Proposal 1, support 2, 3 - I would like to propose an alternative to the proposed channel reorganisation. I think my approach is a bit more granular and will remove the Bots category completely. Please review it here.. --Legaia 2 Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 22:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think this just exacerbates the problems with the original proposal. I'm having a really hard time understanding why we'd want to push down a bunch of important channels for #recent-changes-rsc or about a dozen others. ʞooɔ 08:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Support alternative #2 for proposal 1 - Looks good. Only thing I'd change is move glooptools to meta as that should be for all wikis, not just RS. Also when is meta getting darkmode, the light burns. :Wowee:07:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1, Support 2+3 - If the goal is to make the discord easier to navigate for new users, I don't think 1 helps that. For dedicated users, I think it could be nice, but those people are also more likely to have already muted and possibly hidden channels they don't read. In the proposal, RSW's main channel can be pushed down by OSW projects, which I don't think is very new-user (or dual wiki editor) friendly. I think it's unlikely that new users will scroll through past the first few channels or collapse sections initially if they are quickly trying to get a question answered. With that in mind, I would argue that this proposal works in the opposite direction of the stated goal. I think this actually puts more useless channels (ex. OSW projects) in front of more important ones (wiki-rs, drop-logs) for new users. I also disagree with the placement of off-topic and voice above bots as many OSW editors use the bots section (esp. recent-changes) for stuff like counter vandalism and general fact checking. Considering voice has a separate indicator that people are in it (Discord shows an icon over the server icon) I don't think that voice lacks visibility. In fact, we frequently get joined by random people with no other interaction in the server while in voice, which makes me highly skeptical that it lacks visibility in its current state.
I'm not opposed to reorganizing the discord in general, but I think we need to rethink about what it is we want to target and whether reorganization is the best approach to solving that issue. I'm not sure I'm convinced that the reason people have low interaction rates is due to confusing server organization yet. It could be due to other factors, like the ease of joining the discord via the on-wiki button in the sidebar, leading to a lot of people joining for no reason other than the button was there. Or maybe the numbers look bad because there is a lot of buildup of people who neither read or interact, but are never removed. If it is the server itself, maybe it's due to channel names instead. I'd really like to see some data before we do something like change the discord layout, if for no other reason than getting a baseline. FWIW I'm not sure #osrs-pvp is dead, but it might be fine to archive it until OSRS equipment rebalance is out. - Andmcadams (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1, Support 2, Neutral 3 - As others have said I think reorganising the channels this way makes wiki-tech and wiki-meta much less visual which is a bad thing, and most projects apply to both wikis and imho are better the way they are now. I strongly agree that the welcome channel messages should be combined, I think the welcome text than a second message for the subscription reactions. I think archiving no longer used project channels should be done, but not sure where to draw the line since linguists is still an ongoing project, just nothing really going on lately.15:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1, Support 2/3 - As long as 3's channels users can agree with it. I like giver role control to users and I prefer current-ish channel layout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Choppe (talk) on 19:20, 13 May 2021.
- I think I'd prefer it in welcome, if it's condensed to a single message it shouldn't really take up much space anyways, I think all 3 (or 4 if you include the linked stuff) of our current roles' wording could definitely be condensed to a single line each. It would be a bit weird to separate it out into a separate channel since we don't have very many roles that "need" a reaction role imo 18:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for re-ordering channels at this time, though there is potential for discussion on the 'purpose of the discord server' (make a thread if you like).
- There was no discussion on renaming channels, so status quo prevails.
- There is consensus to update the #welcome messages.
- There is no consensus to archive the proposed channels.