User talk:Laura/Archive 2

From Fan History Wiki

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Category question 2 American/English Release Names vs. Japanese Names 3 Midnight moonlight said ... 4 Midnight moonlight said ... 5 ARRGH!!! 6 Poke from RCC 7 What to do about a deletion? 8 SLWatson said ...

Category question

Hey Laura, quick category question.

For things like television fandoms and music fandoms, should we be naming categories to make the subcategories under "Music fandom categories" or "Music fandoms"? (And likewise "Television fandom categories" or "Television fandoms"?) Because I'm confused which is the proper parent directory or naming convention (it seems different in these instances as compared to the video game and anime areas, for instance.) So basically, if I make a category for Genesis, the band, should the category "Genesis" fall under "Music fandom categories" or "Music fandoms"?--Sidewinder 16:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I did "Music fandom categories" for categories themselves as it just made it easier to separate articles from categories. I prefer it that way and have been doing it that... But I could go either way. :/ (The amount of new articles, the influx of new people, the people helping contribute. I'm having moment of feeling overwhelmed.) --Laura 16:54, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I vote it be structured like http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Category:Television currently is. You then have three layers deep instead of five or six, navigation is kept relatively simple and it looks much, much cleaner. SLWatson 16:56, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Except television fandoms is a subcat of television. Move television fandom categories to television and leave in television fandom... That might make it easier: Find where the butt load of articles is in one place about a fandom, find the specific article in the other. I've just found a lot of people don't scroll all the way to the bottom when you have a huge number of articles up top. --Laura 17:01, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, so...specific example time (because that's the only way my brain processes these things well.) The Brimstone article should therefore be categorized under both "Category:Television fandoms" and "Category:Brimstone"? And "Category:Brimstone" should be a sub-category of "Category:Television fandom categories"? I think I'm understanding but want to make sure...before I make more work for myself...--Sidewinder 17:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

That would be what I'm suggesting and what I've been doing, yes. --Laura 17:07, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay yay I feel relieved now. :) And I understand. Mucho thanks (and some cleanup to do, I'm sure...)--Sidewinder 17:13, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

See, that's where I would say no. (But hey, majority rules.) This is what I propose --

Television <-- Television fandoms <-- Law and Order: SVU

Television <-- Television fans <-- Law and Order:SVU fans

Television <-- Television fansites <-- Law and Order:SVU Archive

See? Instead, what you guys are talking about is...

Television <-- Television fandoms <-- Television fandom categories <-- Category:Brimstone <-- Brimstone fandom

So, five versus three levels; adds nothing but confusion, IMHO. Where does it really enhance the ease-of-use? SLWatson 17:15, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

This is why I let my co-sysop handle category architecture at PoliceWiki. It broke my brain. I think the difference is where you put the emphasis: on television fandom as a whole (assuming all television fandoms are somewhat similar in breakdown, or on the individual fandom itself (Brimstone)? I think Laura's system puts more of the emphasis on the individual fandom, and what may be it's particular breakdown of activity, and keeps all activity related to a particular fandom (archives, fans, art, etc) under that particular fandom's umbrella. But anyway...one thing I've learned with doing PoliceWiki too is that there is no perfect categorization solution. Always pluses and minuses to any system. You just have to pick one and stick to it or else all is confusion... --Sidewinder 17:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that Fan History has grown rather organically with out any real planning in place for it. When it started, I really had no clue what was necessary, or even a thought about it as it hadn't been done... so what has grown has been organically. I'd prefer what I was doing just because it makes more sense to me and makes content finding easier and more logical. And I'd like to stick to it. But either way, a lot of work is going to need to be un/done in order to get one version done. (The last time we did something like that, it took two months between Jae and myself.) Another advantage for me, is that by separating categories and articles, you need to go through fewer pages in order to find articles or categories you want. --Laura 17:42, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Understood. I probably haven't properly categorized all the new templated pages I've put in place. :-/ But I guess I can just make that a project to add to the list...--Sidewinder 18:08, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I probably should have told you I was doing that. My bad. :( *sighs* On a positive note, 102,776 good articles! --Laura 18:12, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

S'ok. So long as I understand the system I'm good. There's always MediaWest where I know I'll have plenty of hours of time to kill lounging about in the dealer's room to tackle annoying tasks like re-categorization ;) But I do think a site map like we developed here would be helpful in visualizing things, also for folks to understand how it works (even if with a larger wiki like this all the individual fandoms couldn't be listed...at least an overall scheme if possible could be really helpful...)--Sidewinder 19:26, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Image:Fandom Flow Chart for Organizing on Fan History.gif Uploaded that this morning. Might try to do that thought it makes me twitch to think about. Given Fan History's size, it might better almost to do something like that on a smaller level. --Laura 19:42, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh noes! Sudden realization that I'll have a lot of time lounging around MediaWest with very little at my table to distribute! Must make mental note that May is coming up and I need to find a printer and start making copies. Site map started on and will try to occasionally edit it some. (The goal tomorrow was to [NOT spend 14 hours working on the wiki] spend time plugging Fan history on various LiveJournal communities, on FanPop and where ever else I can.) --Laura 22:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

How about Television <- Television fandom categories <- Brimstone

For me, it is just looks really ugly and is confusing to navigate with a 100 million categories that are basically repeats of the same thing that is found directly below it. I remember trying to get my parent to submit links for Fan History on FanPop and the whole categories up here, articles with the same name right below it just confused the heck out of him. :( --Laura 17:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I am so confused now. My brain! You're all breaking it!! SLWatson 17:27, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Me too. And then I discovered the horror of Character codes. Why must people name themselves after canon characters? --Laura 17:33, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Disregard. I'll try it the original way. SLWatson 22:27, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

We could try that. (Though that would mean sidewinder might just have to do that for movies, books, video games, etc.) If both work for that particular segment of fandom, it could also probably just be left. There is nothing that really says each fandom section needs to be treated the same way... and as the wiki grows, it might behoove a section to work on specific portals for sections. :/ Though considering that there isn't much assistance at the moment, that might be a bit of time off. *babbles* --Laura 22:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

American/English Release Names vs. Japanese Names

I popped over to edit the Megami Kouhosei page and since my first edit is going to be to mention that it was released/shown as Pilot Candidate in the US (also Candidate for Goddess, confusingly). I'm assuming the page was created as Megami Kouhosei because it's listed that way on ff.n (maybe?) so I'd like to know if there's a rule or general consensus on how to name articles for series that have drastically different names between their Japanese and English releases. Since this is an English-speaking wiki, would it be sensible to use the English-release name and have the Japanese name redirect? Kalloway 18:29, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I've been using FanFiction.Net, IMDB and to a lesser degree AnimeNewsNetwork for name information. I'm assuming they use English based release names so that would probably be a good idea just for the sake of trying to have article name consistency. So yeah, your suggestion sounds reasonable and I should probably append a help page about article names to reflect that. --Laura 18:49, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree, that makes sense and is a good point to be raised. I've just been adding new page templates as needed, based on the names generated by the ff.n-bot unless I clearly knew there was a more commonly used/accepted name. But for consistency sake, sticking with English names with others as redirect sounds sensible and can be easily fixed with moves and redirects. I admit that anime is not my strong point so if anything is wrongly named or anything, please do mention it on the appropriate talk page to have the administrators look into things.--Sidewinder 19:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you both. I can't think of many series other than Megami Kouhousei that have way too many names, but it's good to have a clear rule for future reference. Kalloway 09:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

No problem. If you have any more suggests re:anime and manga, please share because I'm not that familiar with anime. Jae is our resident anime person and she's been involved with a new job. Also, updated the help page about article names to reflect that. --Laura 09:20, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Midnight moonlight said ...

Linking is okay. My experience in fandom has been you don't need to ask permission to link if it is publicly available and Fan History doesn't require it. Uploading art is a different issue and generally considered a no no. If you want to ask, feel free but not required. (And if they have a problem with the link later, it can easily be removed.) --Laura 16:41, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Cheers! Was just making sure before I did something stupid! --Midnight moonlight 16:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Always better to ask. :) And pretty valid question considering some attitudes in fandom. --Laura 16:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Midnight moonlight said ...

I can do it in a second but basically just type a page name in the bar, click edit on the blank page... and that is it. :) If it is a situation like that with two things for the same name, then you create a disambiguation which lets people know. In the case of Slash, Slash (disambiguation) exists already, so you would just need to add Slash (musician) to the list. Er. If that makes sense. Blah. I'll try to explain it better later tonight if it doesn't. --Laura 13:23, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah ok, I get it! And if you don't get around to creating it, I'll have a go later. My brain's in "Blah" mode at the moment! --Rae 14:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I created the page and fixed the disambiguation page. It isn't perfect as I wasn't sure if he should be treated as a solo artist (and a member of a band) or as a member of a band. The other option for creating new pages is to say search for them and it should offer up the option to create a page with that name. --Laura 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah no problems. I'm sure we can fix all that as we go along! But thanks for the help. It's much appreciated! --Rae 15:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

No problem and if you need any help, feel free to give me or any of the other admins a shout. :) --Laura 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

ARRGH!!!

I thought you said I wouldn't have to see that damndable bot until Tuesday! You're supposed to be at the camp! Go do that and leave my page cleaning bot free! SLWatson 18:14, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

I love camp. And I only ran it for an hour. --Laura 19:56, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Poke from RCC

You know the deal. Just pop'ing by your user page to say hi. PS, I hate the captcha on ever edit --ShakataGaNai 16:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

What to do about a deletion?

I created a page for Lillehafrue under Thunderbirds Fans (with her permission), with the intention of helping her transfer her ffnetbot materials when she had time. Now the ffnetbot article is gone. Is there some sort of protocol for mentioning this somewhere (other than my talk) so a bot article that will be worked on doesn't get deleted? Thanks. --Tikatu 16:53, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Erf. That deletion was probably me. I might have deleted the bot duplicate. Would you mind being modded? And then you can restore deletions, etc.? It can be undeleted rather easily in any case. --Laura 16:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Found it. Restored it. This was just one of those errors on my part where I deleted pages I thought were the same because I've screwed up the bot several time and created about 2,000 repeat articles as a result. *sighs* So yeah. --Laura 16:58, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for restoring it! The materials are now moved and I'll have Lillehafrue ask for deletion. I've thought about the modding; I'm very tempted. What would it involve? You can email me at tiquatoo@msn.com or I'll create a post on my lj. Thanks! --Tikatu 19:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Generally, becoming an admin is mostly sort of a "Thanks for participating on and contributing to Fan History regularly." It is also "You've made a lot of valuable edits that we don't have problems with." Mostly, it is about making your job easier when editing because you can restore deleted pages, delete pages and ban users. People may e-mail you or contact you and ask you for deletions. That would pretty much be the extent of any real admin work. (And our general policy is please discuss things you have issues with and support other modly decisions such as bannings. If you disagree, that would be one of the few times where we would ask about that off wiki. That has happened once, maybe twice.) So not much real responsibility as the wiki can run itself pretty well at times. It can be more if you want it to be more.

Will delete the extra one now.--Laura 19:13, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I'll sign on. Beyond the Thunderbirds stuff, let me know what I can help with in the bigger picture. I'm still finding my way in Wiki-editing, though, so I may ask questions.--Tikatu 21:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Should be done now. :) You should see some times which now say protect and delete. If you look at Recent changes, it should also now show block next to people's names. Questions are good and even if you just do Thunderbirds, that's still very much appreciated. :) We have another administrator who just does Kim Possible and is VERY new to the whole wiki thing. --Laura 21:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Heya, Tikatu. If you want a totally ongoing task, you can keep an eye out in your wiki patrolling for any fandom list that has Marching Band and remove it (if it's the only one on the page, delete the whole page as non-fandom). Likewise, if you see any X-Over categories or listed X-Over fandoms on anyones' page, delete those as they aren't actually fandoms. These are pretty huge ongoing tasks, and I can use all the help I can get on cleaning this stuff up. SLWatson 23:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, there is also the To do... lists. :) Some many things to do and not enough participants to do them all. :( I'm also of the camp of great things to do in the big picture would be to try to drive traffic and encourage others to participate. Not certain where priorities lie beyond my own and administrators can prioritize as they're interested. :) --Laura 23:48, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Do the Misc: (insert media here) categories fall under the same as X-overs? I'm going through the Thunderbirds fans category... ;D --Tikatu 00:14, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

SLWatson is probably better to answer that. In an ideal situation, it would be great to go verify what fandoms those misc. people are and change out those categories. I wouldn't delete the articles as non-fandom.... and yeah. SLWatson is pretty much doing that so I really have no idea. She should answer. :) --Laura 08:19, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

SLWatson said ...

Hello. Thanks for your comment. We'll get to that eventually. We're hard at work on other things. You're more than welcome to help contribute if you want to. If not, no big deal. We valued your contributions and involvement. The only reason you were removed from the administration staff was that your vision of the wiki did not mesh with our vision, to the point where you were unwilling to help enforce the rules, and explain them to users who might have questions regarding the wiki's philosophy. That was not something that was done lightly. It was done after we talked about it with four other administrators as we did and do value the contributions you made. But we'll get to those other changes. At the moment, we're hard at work trying to improve the back end to help insure Fan History's future. --Laura 14:16, 17 June 2008 (CDT)

Actually, you never told me to enforce anything. Just to look at it and ask what she was doing. Which I did, and asked her, and got a reply. And then, you didn't like my judgment call and banned her. And then I went WTFBBQ?! And then, you blocked me, and I e-mailed you. Then, you didn't reply to me, instead sharing the e-mail with however many other people. And then, I was de-admin'd, without warning, without any discussions, without any negotiations. Oddly, no where in there did you tell me to enforce anything -- you merely told me to go and look at what Jaina was doing. The talk history where she said she was deleting inaccurate material should still be available. See... it was one thing to bust rear on this when it became my pride to do so; when I was in a position that I took seriously enough to spend hours working on this. But why should I bust rear for someone else's pride, since my own doesn't matter? Really: There shall be no revisionist history on this issue. The facts are as stated above. I'm just deeply sorry for the sake of a good ideal that it ended up as such. But hey, whenever you find someone else willing to spend hours looking for proper fandoms for Misc. categories, and fixing split ones over hundreds of thousands of pages in the long term... well, you likely won't. But good luck in the search! SLWatson 22:53, 17 June 2008 (CDT)