Talk:Rescue Rangers
From Fan History Wiki
| This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page. Please remove this template when the conversation has run its course. |
Contents |
[edit] Article Rewrite
Given the recent edits to the article, and the recent edits to related articles, the article is going to get a bit of a rewrite by me. I don't know your fandom particularly well so we'll see how well this goes. If you have any issues with the edits, please let me know. When I'm done playing with the article, it will be unlocked. --Laura 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rescue Ranger Wiki
I'm going to be removing a lot of those Interwiki links because in a number of cases? They are used in the place of the links where we actually HAVE articles so there really isn't a reason for them. Also, the wiki behaved improperly in regards to redirecting articles from Fan History to their own wiki. I'm not certain what the standing of the wiki is in the wider community so I'm not sure how unbiased that wiki is viewed and the person who e-mailed me hasn't gotten back to me on that. I would massively appreciate it if fandom members could clarify that status for me. --Laura 14:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Help article
I've created Help:Rescue Rangers which explains our relationship with RangerWiki, special rules for articles related to the Rescue Ranger fandom, information on how to organize the category, advice on specific sections like Category:Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes. The rules section is locked because what is on the help page is our official policy considering the issues that we've had to deal with with this fandom. If people want additions, you can comment here or on the talk page for Help:Rescue Rangers and we'll take that under advisement. Feedback is welcome. --Laura 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fan fiction
The fan fiction information was removed from the main fandom timeline. It was moved to its section on the article. It may eventually be moved to its own article if people more familiar with the fandom thinks there is enough information to warrant it or if they feel the fan fiction community is separate enough from the rest of the fandom community that it makes sense to move it off article. Please comment to let us know. --Laura 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fandom members
I removed all the interwiki links to RangerWiki because the articles for those people should exist on Fan History AND we should be pointed to that content our own wiki. Those links to RangerWiki can be put in on the articles about those members of fandom. Where articles don't exist yet, either I'll work on creating them after I finish trying to clean up this article or hopefully, later, some one else can create them user Template:Person as a base. ... OR mirroring the content from RangerWiki where the articles comply with Fan History's privacy policy and rules. --Laura 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fandom size
The Fandom Size part of the article is supposed to have historical dates regarding the size. The way the section was formatted seemed to suggest that people change the information as time passes. That means that any historical data was buried in the article. Hopefully, the current format will suggest that people are supposed to add information regarding the size of the fandom in past periods and as it stands now with the information being organized by month. For places on the wiki where the information is organized differently, or for off wiki information, that information should be included in the Misc section. --Laura 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Canon
The canon section could probably use a general summary of canon including a general over view of the show and a summary of what is canon and what is not canon. If there is debate regarding the whole issue of what is canon and what isn't, that should probably be included in the kerfluffles, wank and issues section. The canon release timeline could also probably use some improvement. I'm not necessarily sold on the formatting of the section as I mostly just moved it there to get it out of the general timeline. --Laura 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Kerfluffles, wank and issues
Almost any other fandom would be calling it wank. I'm not seeing why this fandom needs a different term other than to make the fandom look less batshit insane. So I've changed the word Issues to the phrase Kerfluffles, wank and issues. It is more accurate and reflects that some of these issues were not altogether nice. The area really needs to be much more thorough. And to have these fights broken off into separate articles like they are on RangerWiki. If you have other thoughts on this section, let me know. --Laura 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Several people from Chip 'n' Dale Online find the term 'Kerfluffles' to be... well... let's say 'unusual'. That's why it kept changing. Also, I don't mean to question your wiki's tried-and-tested framework, but what exactly is your definition of 'wank'? I'm an Australian, and we use that term here, but I don't think it has the same meaning as what you're using it for! ;) --Soda 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kerfluffle is the term we use consistently here for within-fandom arguments, battles, wars, etc of any kind. As per Dictionary.com: it is defined as a "row, disturbance, c.1930, first in Canadian English, ult. from Scot. curfuffle, based on fuffle "to throw into disorder;" first element probably as in kersplash, etc."[1] The use of that term on this site is not going to be changed, and the admins will put it back if it is deleted out of the article (again).
- Wank is also a very well-understood and accepted term in fandom communities on-line for engaging in arguments and battles which would generally be seen as having no importance to anyone outside of a particular fandom. As Fandom Wank itself puts it: "Self-aggrandizing posturing. Fannish absurdities. Circular ego-stroking. Endless flamewars. Pseudointellectual definitions."[2]--Sidewinder 13:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Acorn Cafe vs. Chip 'N Dale Online
My understanding is there is a lot of drama between these two sites and their various factions which were contributing to the neutrality issues for the article. The Acorn Cafe is also covered extensively in its own article. It is also mentioned in the fan fiction section and has its own section in the fansites section. Because of that, I've removed information about The Acorn Site from the main article's timeline. If the event that was removed really had that large of an impact on the whole of the fandom, please let us know and it can be put back in. (But please comment before doing that as we don't want duplicate information unless there is a real reason for it in this case.) --Laura 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gadgephile
The spelling in the terminology section was Gadgephile. We changed it to Gadgetphile because that seemed like a spelling error/typo. Was it actually that? Or was it correct the first time? --Laura 18:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, both are acceptable, and have been for a long time. --Soda 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The main reason why this article appears to have bias: Lack of citations. The [citation needed] parts were left in. I don't know and don't want to go hunting up more of those citations when I don't have access to the boards in questions. We do have a citation note for linking to content that is locked so if that's the case, please cite the source and use [citation is locked] to let people know that. A lot of the article was fixed in the past by User:Soda. Great job there. If anyone has problem with my attempts to help further neutralize the article or the neutrality of the article in general, please comment. --Laura 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lock lifted
The lock has been lifted. If we continue to have problems with the article, we'll lock it again. If you have any questions as to why it was locked, please let us know. --Laura 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, good post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for posting.
--AndrewBoldman 00:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)