<div class="quote"><i>Speedit wrote:
* I was referring to Discussions. This wiki doesn't have it.

• The burden of proof is on you to show that my statements are invalid, or biased. Dismissing what I say about other stuff with no basis isn't valid or unbiased. Similarly, I personally don't think it's okay for mobile users to be understated or undercut as a group <i>without basis</i> - only using language like "hypothetical", "overestimation" etc.
• About your claim that the desktop mode is easy to use on phones, this is how the mobile skin looks like on my 5" phone after 25 seconds. It seemed like images were loading in the tabber just like they are in the mobile skin. The local navigation can't be read, and the text isn't too clear, because of the background. I wouldn't stumble on Forum by accident if shown that.
• Is there a difference between complaints voiced when this topic started and older complaints? The substance should be much more important than the time and context. And they wouldn't be complaining to one user, it should be to the admins or the community.

<p>To add to that: </p>

• There are always other sources of information on a subject to compete with. If mobile users have vast obstacles to reading the article text, then they have the competitors.
• As we discuss this, it still takes 10-15 seconds to fast-scroll through the infobox images in Mercury.

</i></div>
<p>The time and date is not really relevant. I really just want a complaint from a member or reader that is not involved or less involved with this discussion, so that the complaint is not of bias. It is not on me to prove you wrong when you still need to prove yourself right. It wouldn't make sense for someone to make a claim and then expect someone else to prove them wrong. That is having faith in their claim and this is not a discussion of faith. The fact that you are making this difficult and not providing a simple complaint not made by you, tells me that you cannot find one, which means this is discussion about a non-problem. It doesn't help when you blatently just told me that it only takes 10-15 seconds to scroll past the images in the infobox, which makes it barely even an inconvience. </p><p>Regarding the competitors thing, during this discussion, I was told by one user that he was thinking about making a website for the wiki to move to because of the infobox thing. It seems that you are forgetting that we can move whenever we want, so making the users of this wiki or any wiki angry is not a good idea. I am advocating for the community that has spoken against the idea of portable infoboxes. They are free to voice their opinion if they do not agree with me, but since they have not, I must assume that they do. Well, either that or they, like me, wish this discussion died days ago. Really, it should never have gotten to a thread. While it was good that the CTab problem was addressed and a solution was found, it was really just the result of a discussion that should have remained on Skype as numerous users there agreed that the idea of making our infoboxes portable was not a good idea. </p>

<p>I've mentioned numerous different issues with the tabber (mass autoloading, the Mercury text not being readily accessible, being forced to desktop, extreme lag there). Those haven't gone away or solved themselves. You ask the complaining user to produce other complaints or dismiss what they have to say - it's not a proper response to the complaint. There is evidence of these issues in the very first post here and elsewhere. Further to that, claimed bias would be a skew or premotivation and doesn't falsify what people say. I am willing to consider and respond to everything that you say. I ask that you do the same. </p><p>This thread isn't an attempt at making users angry, or assuming bad faith from this community, or even deploying Portable Infoboxes (though they could be of help). It's an attempt to address the issues mobile users stand to face while navigating here. Throughout that discussion, some objections were raised by you, and were discussed openly: </p>

• "Is the mobile statistic real and non-hypothetical?"
• "Well, is the user who suggested X heavily biased?"
• "How does FANDOM get these stats? Are they spying on us? Are the stats real?"

<dl><dd>At least 185 elements on this page have data-tracking attributes for anonymous tracking. (Example stats.) </dd></dl><p>Saying the repliers are being "biased" just serves to sow bad faith. While I'm not inclined to speak for an editor, Daisydukes1meep seems to consider the mobile issues to be a problem. Brick, 456 and Nick would too. As FishTank said here, it's beyond skepticism to dismiss posts numerous times between both threads. It isn't biased to have certain expectations from the mobile and desktop experience on every wiki. </p><p>About the idea of PI - it's been said before that the community had objections to the portable infoboxes but there was division on it. Nobody can see the Skype, and it is not fair to assume more community opposition from silence or a closed thread. The why is what's important. So please share why. The input on this proposal seems medium-to-positive at this point. </p><p>NB: When I said 10-15 seconds, I was describing the fastest scroll my phone actually offered. More than two thirds of the articles for Spongebob and Eugene are simply images. Scrolling past those images is what triggers the mass lazyloading too. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Speedit wrote:
I've mentioned numerous different issues with the tabber (mass autoloading, the Mercury text not being readily accessible, being forced to desktop, extreme lag there). Those haven't gone away or solved themselves. You ask the complaining user to produce other complaints or dismiss what they have to say - it's not a proper response to the complaint. There is evidence of these issues in the very first post here and elsewhere. Further to that, claimed bias would be a skew or premotivation and doesn't falsify what people say. I am willing to consider and respond to everything that you say. I ask that you do the same. <p>This thread isn't an attempt at making users angry, or assuming bad faith from this community, or even deploying Portable Infoboxes (though they could be of help). It's an attempt to address the issues mobile users stand to face while navigating here. Throughout that discussion, some objections were raised by you, and were discussed openly: </p>

• "Is the mobile statistic real and non-hypothetical?"
• "Well, is the user who suggested X heavily biased?"
• "How does FANDOM get these stats? Are they spying on us? Are the stats real?"

<dl><dd>At least 185 elements on this page have data-tracking attributes for anonymous tracking. (Example stats.) </dd></dl><p>Saying the repliers are being "biased" just serves to sow bad faith. While I'm not inclined to speak for an editor, Daisydukes1meep seems to consider the mobile issues to be a problem. Brick, 456 and Nick would too. As FishTank said here, it's beyond skepticism to dismiss posts numerous times between both threads. It isn't biased to have certain expectations from the mobile and desktop experience on every wiki. </p><p>About the idea of PI - it's been said before that the community had objections to the portable infoboxes but there was division on it. Nobody can see the Skype, and it is not fair to assume more community opposition from silence or a closed thread. The why is what's important. So please share why. The input on this proposal seems medium-to-positive at this point. </p><p>NB: When I said 10-15 seconds, I was describing the fastest scroll my phone actually offered. More than two thirds of the articles for Spongebob and Eugene are simply images. Scrolling past those images is what triggers the mass lazyloading too. </p> </i></div>
<p>My biggest problem with your complaint is that you just called it a complaint to justify issues you find with it. If you had complained prior to your involvement with this, then I would be acting differently, but since you changed your opinion into a complaint after I requested complaints, I cannot take it seriously. I am not asking, you, the complainer, to bring me complaints. I am asking you, the person who came to this wiki to attack the current infobox, to bring me complaints. </p><p>No one in forcing anyone to use desktop mode. I and a few others have just suggested that people use it instead as it is, in my opinion, superior to mobile. </p><p>If the Mercury text loads, then it is available as soon as someone spends the supposed 10-15 seconds scrolling. If it does not load, then is that a problem caused by the current infoboxes or the Mercury skin? </p><p>Regarding the point of this thread, notably to deploy the portable infoboxes, yes, that is the point of this thread. Okay, well, it isn't, but it seems like I have to defend the current infoboxes because if I don't, they will be replaced by a staff member, likely FishTank. The countdown is why I am so concerned. If the countdown wasn't there, then we could have a more professional discussion about if the portable infoboxes are useful or even wanted on this wiki. At the current time, my purpose is to convince FishTank to not replace the current infoboxes before September 15. I believe that in the last thread, I was far more relaxed because there wasn't a countdown. So, if you want to have an actual discussion about the problems that mobile users may or may not experience on this wiki, then the countdown has to stop. </p><p>Regarding Skype, to dismiss what you cannot see is hypocritical to say the least. You are claiming that people have a problem when you have shown only one, maybe two, person/people who has/have actually addressed that there are these supposed problems with the mobile. You are also assuming that silent people do have a problem with this, so that is another case of hypocriticalness. </p><p>Regarding the 10-15 seconds thing, I don't know if you actually addressed the fact that people would still have to scroll past the images even in a gallery. If you didn't, please do. If you did, I apologize for forgetting, but, please reittorate. </p><p>The reason why I feel like I want to keep the current infobox is, beyond the numerous holes in your list of problems, that I like the current infobox more than the portable infobox. I also feel like losing the tabbers in the infobox is losing content on the page. I have mentioned the main benefit of having the tabbers. It is convenient for the users, at least those on Oasis, to look at the images. If it was put in a gallery on the page, it might still be convenient, but it wouldn't be as convenient. For a long time now, the infobox was just the place for those images. It just feels right. Instead of having them in a gallery later in the article, it just feels right to be able to see them next to the designs of SpongeBob throughout the series. As mentinoned earlier, the infobox is really quite redundant as all the infomation is either on the page already or could be added to it. Therefore, it seems the purpose of the infobox is to be convient, so to take away an element of that convience, I feel, would be wrong. Regarding putting the tabbers in the gallery page, while it is somewhat convenient, it does seem rather unnessary as one could just go to the subgallery of a character, location, or object (if those exist for those things) and just see the differences. A lot of people worked on these tabbers, including myself, and while it may not be destroying their work, it is destroying part of what makes this wiki unique and more importantly the experience of the reader on this wiki. Also, I am not entirely sure anyone who wants the images to move has a plan on what the gallery would look like. While the designs could easily be put into a gallery because they are really just mostly season by season and could easily be labeled as such, things like outfits for say SpongeBob, what's your plan for when SpongeBob has warn a few fancy outfits? Are you going to label them, "Fancy 1", "Fancy 2", "Fancy 3", etc.? Doesn't that look weird? </p>

• I consider my first post to be a complaint, cos of this:
  <div class="quote"><i><p>About #16, I didn't make it to the content on the main character pages, and there was no direction to bypass the large bunch of images and get to that content. So I didn't see the main body of the article, and felt excluded from the wiki's content...</p><p>...Assuming that users will work around these content portability issues is a massive stretch that isn't really backed up. These issues are harming the mobile experience.</p></i></div>
  
  • This was my original opinion and the dissatisfaction is clear. It's a complaint.
  • I'm not really obliged to complain for others as I said before. You've also narrowed the four names I mentioned to "one or two".
• The mobile skin is adapted to said platform and is superior on it from a technical standpoint - I took fault with desktop mode here.
• The article text is available in Mercury to the phone browser but not the reader - text loading is a moot point. The images still bog down everything.
• Portable infoboxes were the goal of the last thread.
• What would the holes be, if you could point that out?
• I was more cautious than simply assuming stuff about mobile readers - I gave basis.
  • When I said that mobile likely has a higher bounce rate than desktop, I backed that up. Everything else has reasoning to back it up, has links or is purely my own experience of an article.
  • You have said that some things wouldn't inconvenience me or made statements that don't describe how Mercury works, which I wouldn't agree with.
  • I did mention here that the mobile users who could be affected wouldn't have an immediate venue for complaint.
• There is an explanation of how the galleries would change things here. That should address the gist of how the gallery would work in mobile.
• If and when images are moved to a gallery, it would be perfectly reasonable to flesh them out so that they're describing the image at hand. That will take work. But it if it eased the user experience on mobile, it would mean more frequent readers. :)

<div class="quote"><i>Speedit wrote:
* I consider my first post to be a complaint, cos of this:
<div class="quote"> <p>About #16, I didn't make it to the content on the main character pages, and there was no direction to bypass the large bunch of images and get to that content. So I didn't see the main body of the article, and felt excluded from the wiki's content...</p><p>...Assuming that users will work around these content portability issues is a massive stretch that isn't really backed up. These issues are harming the mobile experience.</p></i></div>

• • This was my original opinion and the dissatisfaction is clear. It's a complaint.
  • I'm not really obliged to complain for others as I said before. You've also narrowed the four names I mentioned to "one or two".
• The mobile skin is adapted to said platform and is superior on it from a technical standpoint - I took fault with desktop mode here.
• The article text is available in Mercury to the phone browser but not the reader - text loading is a moot point. The images still bog down everything.
• Portable infoboxes were the goal of the last thread.
• What would the holes be, if you could point that out?
• I was more cautious than simply assuming stuff about mobile readers - I gave basis.
  • When I said that mobile likely has a higher bounce rate than desktop, I backed that up. Everything else has reasoning to back it up, has links or is purely my own experience of an article.
  • You have said that some things wouldn't inconvenience me or made statements that don't describe how Mercury works, which I wouldn't agree with.
  • I did mention here that the mobile users who could be affected wouldn't have an immediate venue for complaint.
• There is an explanation of how the galleries would change things here. That should address the gist of how the gallery would work in mobile.
• If and when images are moved to a gallery, it would be perfectly reasonable to flesh them out so that they're describing the image at hand. That will take work. But it if it eased the user experience on mobile, it would mean more frequent readers. :)

</div> <p>"You've also narrowed the four names I mentioned to 'one or two'." The reason I did this is because I don't think the other two have mentioned having problems. Maybe, Brick has, but 456 definitely has not. </p><p>"The mobile skin is adapted to said platform and is superior on it from a technical standpoint..." While that is likely true, I am not talking about the skin. I am talking about the portable infobox. I only mentioned the skin when I asked you what was causing the problem. </p><p>"The article text is available in Mercury to the phone browser but not the reader..." Are you referring to the person who reads or the reader view? If you are talking about the latter, I am pretty sure that is out of any of our juristictions to fix. </p><p>"The images still bog down everything." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that I have not seen evidence for this. Also, if it is true, wouldn't they still bog down the page if they were moved to later in the article or maybe bog down the gallery page if they were moved there? </p><p>"Portable infoboxes were the goal of the last thread." Did you just trivialize the fact that this wiki is on a countdown until FishTank or another staff member forces the change upon us? This is not a small matter. This is a very big deal. </p><p>"What would the holes be, if you could point that out?" I have spent the past few messages mentioning the holes. </p><p>"...made statements that don't describe how Mercury works, which I wouldn't agree with." I'm not pretending that I know how Mercury works. I am stating things based off my own knowledge. Also, may I remind you, I am trying to stop a change from being forced on this wiki. </p><p>"There is an explanation of how the galleries would change things here. That should address the gist of how the gallery would work in mobile." I don't need to know how the galleries would change things. I don't need to know how they work. I need to know the plan that people who want to move the images in the design field in the infoboxes to galleries have. Really, I want to see an example of what this might look like. For instance, this isn't a plan: "If and when images are moved to a gallery, it would be perfectly reasonable to flesh them out so that they're describing the image at hand." This is the beginning of a plan, but not a plan. </p><p>"That will take work." Who will do that work? Brick doesn't edit and likely will leave when this situation is over and 456 isn't known to be someone who works on large projects like this. You certainly won't get people like me, who don't want the change, to work on it. </p><p>"But it if it eased the user experience on mobile, it would mean more frequent readers." 1. The biggest problem that I have heard is that it is an annoyance to scroll past the images. To me, an annoyance, especially one that one can get past in a matter of seconds, is not worth moving the images and possibly changing the infobox for. If the images weren't showing up at all, then we would have a real problem, but since they still do, I see no problem. Really, the solution to your complaint is: Relax and enjoy the images. No one is forcing you to scroll past the images, but yourself. The point of images is so that people can see them, not so people don't. 2. Regarding the more frequent readers thing, you have no evidence that this change will do anything, neither do I because it is a future thing and unless you are a time traveller, there is no way for you to know about the future. </p>

<p>Avoiding a wall of text, and will be succinct. Thank you to all parties that have contributed comments. </p><p></p><blockquote class="quote">Those issues (navigation with no content hiding, nested tabbers in the infobox) must be resolved. If your community chooses to make the effort, please do so by 2017-09-15. Otherwise, FANDOM will need to intervene directly and make the changes needed in a manner we feel is best. Not resolving these issues hurts your community significantly, and blocking parts of the articles to force desktop views is not an acceptable compromise.</blockquote> <p>There's nothing at all in there about Portable Infoboxes. FANDOM is not promoting PIs on ESB at this time, though internal parties are. Discussion of Portable Infoboxes here is a distracting conflation. </p><p>Discussion on how the remaining issue (down from two, due to coordination in this thread) will be resolved is encouraged. If it will be resolved is predetermined; one way or another it will be. The line of thought that problems shouldn't be fixed has gone on far longer than it should. </p><p>Please move the nested tabs from the infoboxes into galleries on the respective Gallery pages, or I will do so myself on or after the 15th. You can preclude that by coming up with a workable alternative in this thread. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>FishTank wrote: Avoiding a wall of text, and will be succinct. Thank you to all parties that have contributed comments. </p><p></p><blockquote class="quote">Those issues (navigation with no content hiding, nested tabbers in the infobox) must be resolved. If your community chooses to make the effort, please do so by 2017-09-15. Otherwise, FANDOM will need to intervene directly and make the changes needed in a manner we feel is best. Not resolving these issues hurts your community significantly, and blocking parts of the articles to force desktop views is not an acceptable compromise.</blockquote> <p>There's nothing at all in there about Portable Infoboxes. FANDOM is not promoting PIs on ESB at this time, though internal parties are. Discussion of Portable Infoboxes here is a distracting conflation. </p><p>Discussion on how the remaining issue (down from two, due to coordination in this thread) will be resolved is encouraged. If it will be resolved is predetermined; one way or another it will be. The line of thought that problems shouldn't be fixed has gone on far longer than it should. </p><p>Please move the nested tabs from the infoboxes into galleries on the respective Gallery pages, or I will do so myself on or after the 15th. You can preclude that by coming up with a workable alternative in this thread. </p> </i></div>
<p>Why is there a deadline? Discussions on this wiki are revisited multiple times and brought back up. Hell a discussion on "Krusty Krab" vs "The Krusty Krab" went on for a *long* time. You can't just come in here and demand a deadline. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Sawpog46 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>FishTank wrote: Avoiding a wall of text, and will be succinct. Thank you to all parties that have contributed comments. </p><p></p><blockquote class="quote">Those issues (navigation with no content hiding, nested tabbers in the infobox) must be resolved. If your community chooses to make the effort, please do so by 2017-09-15. Otherwise, FANDOM will need to intervene directly and make the changes needed in a manner we feel is best. Not resolving these issues hurts your community significantly, and blocking parts of the articles to force desktop views is not an acceptable compromise.</blockquote> <p>There's nothing at all in there about Portable Infoboxes. FANDOM is not promoting PIs on ESB at this time, though internal parties are. Discussion of Portable Infoboxes here is a distracting conflation. </p><p>Discussion on how the remaining issue (down from two, due to coordination in this thread) will be resolved is encouraged. If it will be resolved is predetermined; one way or another it will be. The line of thought that problems shouldn't be fixed has gone on far longer than it should. </p><p>Please move the nested tabs from the infoboxes into galleries on the respective Gallery pages, or I will do so myself on or after the 15th. You can preclude that by coming up with a workable alternative in this thread. </p> </i></div>
<p>Why is there a deadline? Discussions on this wiki are revisited multiple times and brought back up. Hell a discussion on "Krusty Krab" vs "The Krusty Krab" went on for a *long* time. You can't just come in here and demand a deadline. </p> </div> <p>Actually, he can. It is hurting the wiki. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>TheOneFootTallBrickWall wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Sawpog46 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>FishTank wrote: Avoiding a wall of text, and will be succinct. Thank you to all parties that have contributed comments. </p><p></p><blockquote class="quote">Those issues (navigation with no content hiding, nested tabbers in the infobox) must be resolved. If your community chooses to make the effort, please do so by 2017-09-15. Otherwise, FANDOM will need to intervene directly and make the changes needed in a manner we feel is best. Not resolving these issues hurts your community significantly, and blocking parts of the articles to force desktop views is not an acceptable compromise.</blockquote> <p>There's nothing at all in there about Portable Infoboxes. FANDOM is not promoting PIs on ESB at this time, though internal parties are. Discussion of Portable Infoboxes here is a distracting conflation. </p><p>Discussion on how the remaining issue (down from two, due to coordination in this thread) will be resolved is encouraged. If it will be resolved is predetermined; one way or another it will be. The line of thought that problems shouldn't be fixed has gone on far longer than it should. </p><p>Please move the nested tabs from the infoboxes into galleries on the respective Gallery pages, or I will do so myself on or after the 15th. You can preclude that by coming up with a workable alternative in this thread. </p> </i></div>
<p>Why is there a deadline? Discussions on this wiki are revisited multiple times and brought back up. Hell a discussion on "Krusty Krab" vs "The Krusty Krab" went on for a *long* time. You can't just come in here and demand a deadline. </p> </div> <p>Actually, he can. It is hurting the wiki. </p> </div> <p>It doesn't matter. We should have as much time to think about this as we want. This is our wiki, not his. </p>

<p>It is everyone's wiki. You can't say it's not his because it is his, and yours, and mine. He works for the website, so if we don't meet the requirements by the time stated, he can fix the wiki. He is not taking over. He is helping the community. </p>