PDA

View Full Version : Would you like for us to make an integrated Wiki?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Dark Pulse
May 5th, 2012, 05:06 AM
...Or more accurately, for me to buy a modification that would let us make one.

My rationale is that a lot of the information we have is, in some ways, fragmented between forum threads, or resources that aren't being updated anymore (i.e; Fuyuki), or are just plain under some less consistent updating (Type-Moon Wiki). Therefore, the logical conclusion to this would be to make Beast's Lair a one-stop shop for any and all Type-Moon needs - discussion forums and a Wiki in one go.

There is a product out there called VaultWiki (https://www.vaultwiki.org). I could use that to easily add an integrated Wiki to the forum, so presumably, anyone with a forum account would be able to edit the thing. It looks about as good as most Wikis do, and it costs $69.98 for the base license with a year's worth of updates. (After that, it's about half that to renew for a year.) The cost would be no problem to me, generally (although if we have people willing to donate for it, that certainly helps!) but at the same time, I want to add it only if we're going to have a group of people who are going to seriously use it, and keep it up-to-date and the best "go-to" source for Type-Moon anywhere.

The old resources we have, such as Fuyuki, are great material, and it would be sad to lose them to the mists of time (indeed, as some of Fuyuki already is) but furthermore, it also can't account for new information such as Mahoyo. This is my attempt to circumvent that, since we do have talented people here, and we can easily become the source for English information on this game. And considering people usually just filch information off of us anyway, at least with this, they'll have webpages they can link back to, or whatever, rather than have to sift through threads (especially when some of those threads, even now, number in the literal thousands of pages of replies).

So, I'll put it up to you, the forumites, as always: Do you think we would benefit from a Wiki? Would you be willing to help out on it if you felt you had something to contribute? I bought the Blogs/CMS on impulse, but that was because I knew the Blogs would work out okay. Something like this, I'm less sure about. Especially if I'm going to be putting my own money down for it, I want to make sure we're going to have people who will make use of it.

Whether I buy it is in your hands... or, in the case of people willing to donate the $70, up to the hands of those who vote.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 08:26 AM
I don't think that's necessary, Mil already made the BL wiki and the success is...mediocre. I don't think that everyone would throw themselves at a chance to edit this one, and it costs money.

Dark Pulse
May 5th, 2012, 08:32 AM
I don't think that's necessary, Mil already made the BL wiki and the success is...mediocre. I don't think that everyone would throw themselves at a chance to edit this one, and it costs money.My theory is that this is due to the fact it is decentralized from the forum.

Here, this ties into existing forum accounts (assuming I'm reading things correctly) and obviously it integrates fully into the forum installation (see the screenshots on the site) so the transition is really seamless. It's also right there on the site, as well, so for things there's easy reference right on-site as opposed to digging up Fuyuki, or digging through threads, or so on.

But again, that's why I'm putting it to vote, so opinions can be voiced and heard.

Mcjon01
May 5th, 2012, 08:35 AM
Well, I can get behind the idea. Mil's wiki is alright, I guess, but I can't be bothered to remember the address and don't really like the format, whereas this would be integrated into BL and looks more like a standard wiki. Though content generation may be problematic since people are likely just going to try pulling content straight from Fuyuki, which arai despises people even using, or Type Moon wiki, which who knows how accurate it is in the first place.

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 09:04 AM
I think it's not a bad idea, provided we're careful to stick to actual factual information (or, failing that, a neutral stance) and not have the articles turn into a long war over the exact wording of the description of the MoS ending (for example)....

The TV Tropes articles can turn into that occasionally and, whilst I do generally try to negotiate with people to get a neutral viewpoint, it's not always clear what a neutral viewpoint is, and sometimes the other person is simply not willing to negotiate at all....

RadiantBeam
May 5th, 2012, 09:20 AM
Hm, I'm going to say yes. Sure, we already have Mil's wiki, but honestly I barely ever use it and don't even know the address. Something more integrated into the forum would be far more helpful, though then you would have the issue of keeping certain topics neutral. Though then again, I imagine that's a problem for any wiki.

How expensive is it anyway, DP?

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 09:29 AM
Hm, I'm going to say yes. Sure, we already have Mil's wiki, but honestly I barely ever use it and don't even know the address. Something more integrated into the forum would be far more helpful, though then you would have the issue of keeping certain topics neutral. Though then again, I imagine that's a problem for any wiki.

Well, neutrality (especially on controversial articles) is indeed an issue with any wiki, but most wikis either don't really do much about it (and, thus, have constant edit wars) or, else, have a large admin presense to deal with such stuff (including locking cotroversial articles almost permanently). I don't think that it would go down very well (or really work) if the mods started locking any article about or involving Sakura or similarly controversial topics (particularly if they locked it on a biased version), especially since about 3/4 of the wiki would end up locked, and in any case I don't think the mods have the time to deal with it.

I'm torn, honestly. I like the idea of having a wiki, but I'm worried that it will either turn into a constant war over certain articles or, else, that DP will just take the "majority" view without any consideration of whether that is fact or just opinion.


How expensive is it anyway, DP?

Erm, Beam....


It looks about as good as most Wikis do, and it costs $69.98 for the base license with a year's worth of updates.

RadiantBeam
May 5th, 2012, 09:37 AM
Gah, my bad, somehow I missed that. Finals are murdering my brain. Thanks for the catch, Mike.

Techlet
May 5th, 2012, 10:42 AM
This sounds like a good investment. Especially for fanfic writers that don't particularly trust the accuracy of TM Wiki.

Tobias
May 5th, 2012, 12:35 PM
hmmm....part of me admires the idea, another part of me somewhat laments what happened with mil and doesn't want you to spend money that might be wasted since you already invest a decent amount financially into these forums, as I understand it.





....meh, guess ill just lurk and see what people think.

RacingeR
May 5th, 2012, 12:38 PM
While the idea itself is good, I'd say to only do it if you can secure a group of people that will put some constant effort in the wiki. If not, I don't think the investment would be worth it.

I think that I'll also lurk and see for now, before voting.

eddyak
May 5th, 2012, 12:41 PM
Yeah, I was gonna comment, but figured that since I'm probably not gonna be able to support the thing, I really don't have much of a say in it.

Flame
May 5th, 2012, 12:45 PM
I'd rather you just install an arcade (I saw it listed somewhere on the vbulletin mods/plugins page) though that's just me

Edit: why did i even post this

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 01:10 PM
I think the Sakura page and MoS ending alone would be huge issues. So... I'd probably have to vote no.

THIS IS WHY WHY CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

lantzblades
May 5th, 2012, 01:13 PM
I support it so long as we have a fact page and one for speculated facts.

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 01:15 PM
Those aren't facts. Those are SPECULATIONS. Just remove the 'facts' from the end. Besides, isn't that what the whole forum basically is?

Techlet
May 5th, 2012, 01:18 PM
The forums is more like speculations for everyone.

Kratosirving
May 5th, 2012, 01:28 PM
I don't think it's a bad idea, as long as entries include ONLY factual material, and none of the powerlevel bullshit that pollutes the Badass Versus and Questions threads. 'Speculated facts' is an oxymoron, and since they haven't been proven they don't belong in a wiki in the first place.

But then again, with a main wiki already out there and the lackluster success of Milbunk's wiki several months back, I can't help but see it as a waste of money, and at the state I'm currently at in life, wasting money is a no-no. :)

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 01:29 PM
No powerlevels? Why make a Wiki in the first place then?

lantzblades
May 5th, 2012, 01:32 PM
'Speculated facts' is an oxymoron

what i mean are things that are implied vaguely but not stated outright X

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 01:35 PM
That's not a fact.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 01:36 PM
You mean stuff like "Caren is Kotomines daughter"?

Lycodrake
May 5th, 2012, 01:38 PM
what i mean are things that are implied vaguely but not stated outright X
You mean implications? :/

Kratosirving
May 5th, 2012, 01:43 PM
If it's going to be connected with the forum anyway (like a button on the top of the ribbon like the Forums and Blogs are) then we can leave all the speculation for the forum, since that's one of the primary functions of a forum anyhow.

http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/just-the-facts_edited-1.jpg?w=450

lantzblades
May 5th, 2012, 01:44 PM
*sigh* nevermind.

do what you will DP.

i'm out.

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 01:47 PM
I think the Sakura page and MoS ending alone would be huge issues. So... I'd probably have to vote no.

THIS IS WHY WHY CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

They would be if people started bashing her in them, yes....

As long as it sticks to actual facts, it wouldn't be a problem. And, no "AM had no effect on Sakura" is not a "fact"....

RacingeR
May 5th, 2012, 01:49 PM
...

Yeah, now given this, I don't think it is a good idea at all.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Mhmm, I can actually see this going quite troll-free if wiki vandalism will have forum punishments as consequences.

I mean flaming in blogs and stuff also falls under them, right?

Satehi
May 5th, 2012, 02:01 PM
I don't think it's a bad idea, as long as entries include ONLY factual material, and none of the powerlevel bullshit that pollutes the Badass Versus and Questions threads. 'Speculated facts' is an oxymoron, and since they haven't been proven they don't belong in a wiki in the first place.

>Implying powerlevels aren't facts

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 02:11 PM
Who are you quoting?

Spinach
May 5th, 2012, 02:17 PM
I3uster, I like you.

Anyway, if this is gonna cause strife, never mind. I vote against it (can't change my fucking vote).

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 02:21 PM
Anything is going to cause strife sooner or later, it's just a question of how it's handled.

Unless someone tries to blatantly troll this effort, it might finally become the ever distant utopia, a correct TM wiki with sourced information.

Black Sword
May 5th, 2012, 02:33 PM
You know, I've heard about Mil's wiki, but today is the first time I actually found it. I always assumed it was still in progress, but apparently, it launched last November. I think, if he's alright with it, his content would be good material on such a thing. Overall, I thought a BL wiki a great idea, with up to date content.

Then I read Mike's comments and had second thoughts strong enough to make me want to change my vote to a resounding "NO." At the very least, we need an option to change our votes on polls.

I've no small amount of experience on Wikipedia, so if, as seems likely, this becomes a reality, I expect I'll be spending most of my time watching the trouble pages.

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 03:04 PM
...

Yeah, now given this, I don't think it is a good idea at all.

What, me stating something that I don't consider to be a "fact" that actually isn't a fact is a problem?

Seriously, what do you think would happen if people start putting things like "Sakura is entirely responsible for everything that happens in HF" on the wiki? You don't need an explicit statement from me to work that out. Hell, even if I wasn't here, it would still happen....


Mhmm, I can actually see this going quite troll-free if wiki vandalism will have forum punishments as consequences.

I mean flaming in blogs and stuff also falls under them, right?

It's quite possible to have a perfectly civil edit-war, though. Or, at least, just as civil as the arguments we have now....


Then I read Mike's comments and had second thoughts strong enough to make me want to change my vote to a resounding "NO." At the very least, we need an option to change our votes on polls.

I've no small amount of experience on Wikipedia, so if, as seems likely, this becomes a reality, I expect I'll be spending most of my time watching the trouble pages.

OK, what?

What is wrong with me wanting the wiki to actually be accurate and not contain character-bashing...?

RadiantBeam
May 5th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Okay, honestly, now that I actually thought about it this might not be such a good idea after all. Edit wars are hardly ever civil, and it just seems like it's asking for a lot of trouble.

Shame I can't go back and change my vote. :p

NewAgeOfPower
May 5th, 2012, 03:11 PM
If Mil would be willing to transfer his work over to this wiki, and scrap his own, it might make the new, centralized BL wiki a success.

I can see why the inconsistencies of the Type-moon wiki would cause concern, but in my opinion the TM wiki has been getting better...

terraablaze
May 5th, 2012, 03:12 PM
I voted no to help out all the foolish people now seeing the error of their ways. Unfortunately I am only one sapient being.

Kratosirving
May 5th, 2012, 03:28 PM
So counting the 3 who want to switch their votes, the current situation is

Yes: 11
No: 9

Five_X
May 5th, 2012, 03:35 PM
I think we should make the Wiki just... not cover characters. Make it more about the objective stuff, like mechanics and plot and Servant stats. Also, it could be a nice repository for translated material that helps out in random debates.

Satehi
May 5th, 2012, 03:36 PM
What Five said would definitely be nice.

Mcjon01
May 5th, 2012, 03:37 PM
I think we should make the Wiki just... not cover characters. Make it more about the objective stuff, like mechanics and plot and Servant stats. Also, it could be a nice repository for translated material that helps out in random debates.

Yeah! I could put some stuff from the secret blog I made to replace fuyuki in there! :neco_arc:

Ace
May 5th, 2012, 03:37 PM
I think we should make the Wiki just... not cover characters. Make it more about the objective stuff, like mechanics and plot and Servant stats. Also, it could be a nice repository for translated material that helps out in random debates.

^ Five knows what's up.

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 03:41 PM
Yeah, I think that, as long as the wiki sticks to factual information, it should be fine. The issue is when it comes to things which are a matter of opinion. And even there, I'm willing to take a neutral viewpoint, provided everyone else is too. But, the issue is whether we can agree on what is "neutral"....

Mcjon01
May 5th, 2012, 03:44 PM
I'm sure character pages would be fine. Just stick to a format that nobody can argue isn't totally objective. Like, a translation of their official profiles or something.

nununu
May 5th, 2012, 03:45 PM
As long as there are no difficulties with accessibility, a wiki would flourish, IMO. The thing with Milbunk's wiki was that only people who know about it in the first place would likely find it. If the forum has a highly-visible link to the wiki, such a problem could be avoided.

Bloble
May 5th, 2012, 03:50 PM
...well, a great ton of us seem to be pessimistic about it, but I say screw that.

Yes all the way!

Theocrass
May 5th, 2012, 03:50 PM
Integration!?

*Slams fist on the table.*

NOT ON MY WATCH!

Segregation now!

Segregation tomorrow!

Segregation forever!

*Looks around.*

Sorry, I've just always wanted to say that.

On topic, I don't think a wiki is a bad idea.

RadiantBeam
May 5th, 2012, 03:52 PM
...well, a great ton of us seem to be pessimistic about it

It's served us well so far!

RacingeR
May 5th, 2012, 05:04 PM
What, me stating something that I don't consider to be a "fact" that actually isn't a fact is a problem?

Seriously, what do you think would happen if people start putting things like "Sakura is entirely responsible for everything that happens in HF" on the wiki? You don't need an explicit statement from me to work that out. Hell, even if I wasn't here, it would still happen....

See, the problem is that you call that a "troll", but for some people (like me, for example) that is their honest and sincere interpretation. It would all end up degenerating into seeing which interpretation is more canonical, and then it would end in a flame war.

Sincerely, seeing how BL is right now and the quantity of unsavory stuff going everywhere with a lot of users, I don't think it is the correct time to implement the wiki. It could be very helpful, yes, but as things are right now, it is only going to end pretty badly.

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 05:05 PM
So now it's tied at 12:12

Bloble
May 5th, 2012, 05:06 PM
I think you're underestimating the potential of BL members to act like mature adults when the time calls for it, Race.

Lycodrake
May 5th, 2012, 05:06 PM
I think you're underestimating the potential of BL members to act like mature adults when the time calls for it, Race.
That happens very, very rarely, though, Bloble.

Bloble
May 5th, 2012, 05:07 PM
That happens very, very rarely, though, Bloble.
I choose to believe in BL, even if it doesn't believe in me.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 05:08 PM
Oh come on, for the most part the userbase is totally civil...

Black Sword
May 5th, 2012, 05:09 PM
Oh come on, for the most part the userbase is totally civil...

Which kind of civil? Civil strife or civil war?

Five_X
May 5th, 2012, 05:11 PM
We're pretty chill. A wiki filled with non-subjective material would be more helpful than harmful, and having it as a tab accessible from BL itself would actually make people visit it.

Of course, we'd need to actually promote it, much more so than Mil's done with his own project. :P

RadiantBeam
May 5th, 2012, 05:14 PM
Basically what Five said.

Honestly, the only issue for the Wiki if we're going by civility would be the characters themselves, as everyone has subjective views of them. The only real win-win way would be to have a very general description of the characters and simply keep it that way, otherwise you're going to end up with an edit war going on.

That, or get Mil to promote his wiki a little more so it becomes common knowledge.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 05:14 PM
It was the same thing with the banners, people avoiding a change for the better to avoid butthurt.

That's not how we get nice things.

Though I stand by my "No" unless we get people who become dedicated wiki staff.

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 05:20 PM
See, the problem is that you call that a "troll", but for some people (like me, for example) that is their honest and sincere interpretation. It would all end up degenerating into seeing which interpretation is more canonical, and then it would end in a flame war.

Actually, it's not even that I'm calling it "trolling". The problem is that, as you say, both sides believe they are right. In that case, however, the correct thing to do is to include neither viewpoint (or, alternately, both).


We're pretty chill. A wiki filled with non-subjective material would be more helpful than harmful, and having it as a tab accessible from BL itself would actually make people visit it.

Exactly.

The key word there is non-subjective. As long as people don't start claiming that Sakura is "objectively" evil, it won't be a problem....

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 05:23 PM
She is objectively a murderer. Enjoy your opinion.

Kratosirving
May 5th, 2012, 05:30 PM
She is objectively a murderer. Enjoy your opinion.

Only in HF! :D

Lycodrake
May 5th, 2012, 05:34 PM
Shirou and Kirei are, objectively, sociopaths. In their own ways, of course.

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 05:35 PM
Nah, Shirou isn't. And I don't think Kotomine is either, but he's really interesting. Anyway, wrong thread for this.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 05:43 PM
You call it the wrong thread after you started it?

Then delete your post, lol.

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 05:44 PM
Nope. Proving a point.

Five_X
May 5th, 2012, 05:45 PM
Anyhow, people, we should go through with this wiki project so long as it's not going to include stuff that's prone to edit wars. For characters, all we need is to have their official profiles translated, as well as their three sizes.

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 05:48 PM
Aren't Taiga's official sizes: ?/?/?

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 05:49 PM
She is objectively a murderer. Enjoy your opinion.

No, she's not. She did not kill anyone intentionally, with the exception of three people who she was not sane whilst killing, and two of which were clear self-defence.

Before you claim that, go look up the word "murderer" in a dictionary....

Neir
May 5th, 2012, 05:51 PM
You're wrong. :3c

See how helpful that was?

So yeah, like Five_X said, official stuff ONLY if there would be a character page.

Also, that one you left out? Still makes her a murderer.

Kratosirving
May 5th, 2012, 05:57 PM
No, she's not. She did not kill anyone intentionally, with the exception of three people who she was not sane whilst killing, and two of which were clear self-defence.

Before you claim that, go look up the word "murderer" in a dictionary....


mur·der·er noun \ˈmər-dər-ər\

one who murders; especially: one who commits the crime of murder.

Followed by

mur·der noun \ˈmər-dər\

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought


So by definition, it doesn't necessairly mean that someone wanted to kill another person, just "that someone kills someone else when it is against the law". The intent is an afterthought.

SeiKeo
May 5th, 2012, 05:59 PM
http://thelawdictionary.org/murder/

Of course, murder is only murder under the law with ​intent.


The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being...

Kratosirving
May 5th, 2012, 06:02 PM
Oh you, Leo~

Don't pull the law in my face when Mike just asked for the dictionary; now they just contradict each other~

SeiKeo
May 5th, 2012, 06:04 PM
Somehow, when talking about what constitutes criminal murder, I'll use the law dictionary instead of the lay one. :p

terraablaze
May 5th, 2012, 06:05 PM
Problem: does every legal entity define murder the same way? If anything shouldn't we be looking up the Japanese legal code and using that?

Mike1984
May 5th, 2012, 06:05 PM
Also, that one you left out? Still makes her a murderer.

Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity :p


Oh you, Leo~

Don't pull the law in my face when Mike just asked for the dictionary; now they just contradict each other~

How can the legal definition contradict the dictionary definition when the legal definition says it has to be "unlawful"...?

Lycodrake
May 5th, 2012, 06:07 PM
Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity :p
Temporary? :V

Five_X
May 5th, 2012, 06:09 PM
I love lawfully murdering people. Fun as hell.

But anyhow, this is not the time nor the place for another Sakura debate! It'll just leave a bitter taste in their mouths. Ahem.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 06:09 PM
Problem: does every legal entity define murder the same way? If anything shouldn't we be looking up the Japanese legal code and using that?
Doesn't the Japanese law system take huge parts from the US anyway?

RadiantBeam
May 5th, 2012, 06:09 PM
And this is why we can never have nice things, you guys.

I3uster
May 5th, 2012, 06:09 PM
Hey, I told him to delete the post ;_;

Lycodrake
May 5th, 2012, 06:10 PM
But anyhow, this is not the time nor the place for another Sakura debate! It'll just leave a bitter taste in their mouths. Ahem.
But those poor trees, Five! Having their names stolen by random human girls, fictional or real! It's a horrible conspiracy against plant-kind!
And don't get me started on other plants that have their names stolen!

terraablaze
May 5th, 2012, 06:13 PM
Doesn't the Japanese law system take huge parts from the US anyway?

The USA law system took huge parts from the British system, but is now quite different due to 200 years of separation and developing in a different country with unique needs. Wouldn't surprise me if something similar happened in Japan, and in fact would surprise me if anything is copypasta straight from our legal code.

eddyak
May 5th, 2012, 07:48 PM
We can't even talk about talking about the wiki without it turning into a mild poo-flinging contest. Sorry, Bloble, but your faith is unfounded.

Satehi
May 5th, 2012, 11:28 PM
All this talk about mudflinging on this potential, new wiki sounds entertaining. So, yes, I want this wiki.

alfheimwanderer
May 5th, 2012, 11:41 PM
Given that I talked to you about this some months ago, Dark Pulse, you can correctly assume that I am in favor.

Milbunk
May 5th, 2012, 11:50 PM
Oh quite an interesting thing you have there DP. I'd love to help with something like this and even moving my wiki over to this newer one would be fun to do.

As for why I don't really advertise well I could, but I don't want to seem like I'm spamming and I won't change my sig anymore then it already has been.

SeiKeo
May 5th, 2012, 11:53 PM
I won't go and say it's an outright bad idea, but DP, don't drop a whole seventy bucks plus yearly just because we tell you to.

Kyte
May 5th, 2012, 11:54 PM
It sounds like a good idea to me, and I have enough of a lack-of-life to offer to be dedicated editor, following Five's suggestion.
Only one thing: No interpretations allowed. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. That way any and all edit wars are avoided.

Oh, and citations. More citation-nazism than even Wikipedia.

EDIT: I had no idea Milbunk had a wiki. Dude, if you have something like that, spamming it is what you gotta do. Spam is only bad when it's pointless. :V

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 10:15 AM
Mhmm, I can actually see this going quite troll-free if wiki vandalism will have forum punishments as consequences.

I mean flaming in blogs and stuff also falls under them, right?Yes. Blogs are reportable, and from what I can gather, so would Wiki vandalization/edit wars/etc.


Integration!?

*Slams fist on the table.*

NOT ON MY WATCH!

Segregation now!

Segregation tomorrow!

Segregation forever!

*Looks around.*

Sorry, I've just always wanted to say that.Don't come crying to me when you end up in a wheelchair in a decade or so.


Actually, it's not even that I'm calling it "trolling". The problem is that, as you say, both sides believe they are right. In that case, however, the correct thing to do is to include neither viewpoint (or, alternately, both).In the interest of fairness, I agree.

I'll wait while some of you pick up your jaws off the floor, for Darples and Mike agreeing on something almost never occurs.

Some characters are more debate-able than others and we all know that. Furthermore, while some have very clear motivations and such, even the protagonists' motivations change (Fate Shirou != UBW Shirou != HF Shirou). Thus I think it would be best if all viewpoints are presented... though I would say "interpretations" should be kept as a separate page from base, "known" facts. The fact that Shirou has Avalon in him is known; whether he knows it or not is another matter entirely. This way the factual pages aren't cluttered, and if people want to debate powerlevels or "which one is the right one" there's pages for that. This keeps both camps reasonably happy, I'd think.


I love lawfully murdering people. Fun as hell.Man I'm glad we picked you.


I won't go and say it's an outright bad idea, but DP, don't drop a whole seventy bucks plus yearly just because we tell you to.The $70 is to buy it and one year of updates; after that I think it's only like $30-40 to renew for another year.

Also, while I'm not sure if I could change specific names over, I could definitely edit the vote counts. Will someone tell me (and please, be honest) what the "correct" vote tally should be?

SeiKeo
May 6th, 2012, 10:21 AM
Jumping the announcement gun, are we?

Spinach
May 6th, 2012, 10:21 AM
Hohohoho~

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 10:49 AM
IMO, this will only work out if not every single forum user can edit it for the trolls and lulz. But then the problem arises that people would complain of unfairness of not being able to edit. If it's the case that everyone can edit, we'd need wiki staff to supervise the pages, and I dunno you'd need someone neutral to do that probably.

But if we can manage to not have edit wars, I'm all for it. It would be a nice place to gather the crapload of material that's scattered all over the place, and it might motivate me to translate the Tsukihime material since there would be a place to put it. Plus, I love organizing things.

Erlkonig
May 6th, 2012, 11:00 AM
No. BL isn't BL without its hilarious powerlevel threads.

Also,

>Bannable edit wars

But what about Kayneth "Fast Wheels" Archibald El Melon!?

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 11:03 AM
But powerlevel threads are speculation, and the wiki wouldn't have speculation. At least I hope not, because that would be a waste and just go to the TMwiki anyways.

edit: If it's possible, could you somehow integrate this wiki idea with the "section" thing on the homepage that Koto complained about before? That way you wouldn't need to pay for the separate wiki stuff.

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 11:14 AM
But if we can manage to not have edit wars, I'm all for it. It would be a nice place to gather the crapload of material that's scattered all over the place, and it might motivate me to translate the Tsukihime material since there would be a place to put it. Plus, I love organizing things....I would love you if you did this.

......I-In a purely platonic way, of course! N-No dirty thoughts, I promise you!


edit: If it's possible, could you somehow integrate this wiki idea with the "section" thing on the homepage that Koto complained about before? That way you wouldn't need to pay for the separate wiki stuff.Well, not quite as far as I know. I intended the CMS to be for more "current" news - i.e; new games, new animes, fan-translations, etc. The Wiki is more of a library of information.

But I don't really know how it interacts with the CMS, if anything.

Lycodrake
May 6th, 2012, 11:16 AM
...I would love you if you did this.
...I-In a purely platonic way, of course! N-No dirty thoughts, I promise you!
For shame, Darples. For shame.

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 11:17 AM
For shame, Darples. For shame.You shut your whore mouth. :(

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 11:17 AM
...I would love you if you did this.

......I-In a purely platonic way, of course! N-No dirty thoughts, I promise you!
If I what, translated the material or organized the wiki? I could do both if you wanted...

(no guarantees on other-people-level translation accuracy, though, because I'm a noob. XD)

Lycodrake
May 6th, 2012, 11:17 AM
You shut your whore mouth. :(
Mean, Darples. ;A;

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 11:21 AM
If I what, translated the material or organized the wiki? I could do both if you wanted...

(no guarantees on other-people-level translation accuracy, though, because I'm a noob. XD)Well, really, I'd love it if there was translations for the character material books in general and so on. I'd actually really love it if they got an official English translation, but I don't know how kosher it would be to actually have these things as downloadable PDFs or whatever. Then again, Type-Moon's stance on derivative works is "Do it because you love them, not to make profit," so I'd think that as long as we're not actually charging for it, it should be okay, and if not, I'm sure they'd let us know somehow.

Wiki organizing, well, I'd have a better idea of how it would work if there's enough yes votes to convince me buying it is a good idea. I mean, we could always certainly add a "Wiki Admins" userclass or something. It depends on how extensively it integrates into forum structures and whatnot, something I don't know without actually having the package, of course.

As for your translating skills, it could be good for improving that, and if anything, we have multiple moonrune-speaking types who could clean up translations. A rough one is always a good start, though, and better than zip.

Who knows, maybe it'll even get Hollow Ataraxia done quicker...

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 11:25 AM
I see.

...I'm going to put my faith into the sanity of the forumites and vote yes, then.

Lycodrake
May 6th, 2012, 11:31 AM
I see.
...I'm going to put my faith into the sanity of the forumites and vote yes, then.
Sanity, is that a new eastern dish? :3

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 11:32 AM
Yes, it's quite tasty. I recommend that everyone try it.

Lycodrake
May 6th, 2012, 11:35 AM
Yes, it's quite tasty. I recommend that everyone try it.
I'll make sure to do that, Ruru. :3

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 11:37 AM
Yes, it's quite tasty. I recommend that everyone try it.http://thermadrol.personalfitnesszone.com/images/Alvita%20Senna%20Leaf%20Tea%20Bags.jpg

Kratosirving
May 6th, 2012, 11:41 AM
Ok, I rofl'ed at that. Nice, Darples.

TypeWannabe
May 6th, 2012, 11:50 AM
So, based on everything, I assume that Dark Pulse is just going to go ahead and make a wiki anyway, making this whole poll completely superfluous then?

I3uster
May 6th, 2012, 11:51 AM
So, based on everything, I assume that Dark Pulse is just going to go ahead and make a wiki anyway, making this whole poll completely superfluous then?
The poll has a majority pointing towards "yes"?

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 12:07 PM
There's still several days. The votes may well change.

If you think it's that bad of an idea, organize some opposition who will vote no. That's the idea behind a vote, after all, and basic democracy in general.

I3uster
May 6th, 2012, 12:11 PM
Oh, btw, if Lian is going to translate stuff when this is in place I'd like to change my vote to yes.

Black Sword
May 6th, 2012, 12:17 PM
Guess I'm selling my soul and becoming a dedicated wiki staffer.

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 12:17 PM
Oh, btw, if Lian is going to translate stuff when this is in place I'd like to change my vote to yes.
wait srs


^same here! XD

SeiKeo
May 6th, 2012, 12:19 PM
wait srs


^same here! XD

(College admissions officers don't think "Works on translating porn on the internet" is a good thing)

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 12:21 PM
(College admissions officers don't think "Works on translating porn on the internet" is a good thing)
:|

(It doesn't matter as long as I keep my GPA up, my exams will all be over in a week and a day)

Mereo Flere
May 6th, 2012, 01:08 PM
Voted yes, on the condition that someone else does all of the hard work.

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 01:14 PM
(College admissions officers don't think "Works on translating porn on the internet" is a good thing)Now now. The character material books are free of porn.

And besides, if she were going to use references, presumably Ruru wouldn't be silly enough to list those. :p

SeiKeo
May 6th, 2012, 01:16 PM
Hollow has porn.

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 01:16 PM
Voted yes, on the condition that someone else does all of the hard work.
this is my new summer project



^^hey look, another sane person! (actually some of them do have porn as Leo said but ignore that)

Dark Pulse
May 6th, 2012, 01:21 PM
Hollow has porn.See my previous post, i.e; the whole part about "she isn't going to be silly enough to list those" that you forgot.

Kyte
May 6th, 2012, 04:08 PM
I see.

...I'm going to put my faith into the sanity of the forumites and vote yes, then.

Don't worry, I'll be your Mean Editor to your Nice Editor. :3c

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 05:30 PM
This is assuming

1. we get a wiki
2. I get to be an editor
3. you get to be an editor
4. you're mean

RadiantBeam
May 6th, 2012, 05:44 PM
4. you're mean

Kyte is plenty mean!

Techlet
May 6th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Voted yes, on the condition that someone else does all of the hard work.

Team work - Where the team does all the work.

Lianru
May 6th, 2012, 05:53 PM
Kyte is plenty mean!
He's not mean to me.

Kyte
May 6th, 2012, 05:53 PM
This is assuming

1. we get a wiki
2. I get to be an editor
3. you get to be an editor
4. you're mean
Assuming all that, of course.


Kyte is plenty mean!
This woman knows me.


He's not mean to me.
You're too lovable. :3

Nortan the Bunny
May 6th, 2012, 06:54 PM
Stupid question: Would this wiki have translations of stuff on there, such as translations of official character profiles and the scenes of Fate/Prototype (the Fate/Prototype script thread), etc.?

Anyways, for troubled pages, I'm not too familiar with the way wikis work, but surely, there's a way to deal with any potential issues such as edit wars. Such as some sort of approval system or having a mod keep an eye on such pages on a constant basis etc. Also imagines that you could ban certain people from editing certain pages too.

Is just going to use Sakura as an example since she was brought up. Surely, there's no problem in mentioning that she killed people in the Heaven's Feel arc, which is fact. No doubt that the section that summarizes her role in the Heaven's Feel arc would elaborate on this further.

SeiKeo
May 6th, 2012, 06:55 PM
Is just going to use Sakura as an example since she was brought up. Surely, there's no problem in mentioning that she killed people in the Heaven's Feel arc, which is fact.

For a given definition of Sakura.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 08:15 AM
It sounds like a good idea to me, and I have enough of a lack-of-life to offer to be dedicated editor, following Five's suggestion.
Only one thing: No interpretations allowed. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. That way any and all edit wars are avoided.

Well, that is of course obvious but, even with that, you still have to be clear what is an "interpretation", and somtimes such a thing is just unavoidable.

If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at the Wikipedia article on "Taiwan". There is a long argument on the talk page about whether it's a "state", a "sovereign state", a "country", as "disputed territory" or God-knows what else. Not to mention issues with the name itself....

Obviously, such things should be avoided as much as possible, but sometimes it's quite difficult to do so, and we have to be very careful to ensure that the article doesn't imply things it shouldn't, too (such as, for example, if you say Sakura "killed" thousands of people, the implication there is that she is at fault for it when, really (IMO at least), she's not).


Some characters are more debate-able than others and we all know that. Furthermore, while some have very clear motivations and such, even the protagonists' motivations change (Fate Shirou != UBW Shirou != HF Shirou). Thus I think it would be best if all viewpoints are presented... though I would say "interpretations" should be kept as a separate page from base, "known" facts. The fact that Shirou has Avalon in him is known; whether he knows it or not is another matter entirely. This way the factual pages aren't cluttered, and if people want to debate powerlevels or "which one is the right one" there's pages for that. This keeps both camps reasonably happy, I'd think.

Yeah, that's probably fair. I have no problem with it as long as it's fair, and does not (implicitly or explicitly) follow one viewpoint. I've managed to edit TV Tropes reasonably successfully (with only one edit war, which went unresolved (with the entire section being deleted) due to the other guy being unwilling to compromise despite my efforts and then the moderators stepping in in a totally stupid manner), so I should be able to cope with it here, as long as people remember that it's supposed to be unbiased (and, if it's not, don't object to me editing it)....

Also, remember, it doesn't have to be right first time around. It's quite possible for someone to write an article, me to edit it into a form that I am happy with, them to edit it back to something intermediate and for us to then alternate editing whilst gradually converging on something mutually acceptable. As long as the other person is willing to actually compromise, then so am I.


IMO, this will only work out if not every single forum user can edit it for the trolls and lulz. But then the problem arises that people would complain of unfairness of not being able to edit. If it's the case that everyone can edit, we'd need wiki staff to supervise the pages, and I dunno you'd need someone neutral to do that probably.

No, sorry, if we have it, then it has to be editable by everyone (maybe with some, relatively low post or time qualification to stop people signing up to vandalise the wiki). Otherwise, how do we decide who is allowed?


But if we can manage to not have edit wars, I'm all for it. It would be a nice place to gather the crapload of material that's scattered all over the place, and it might motivate me to translate the Tsukihime material since there would be a place to put it. Plus, I love organizing things.

Yeah, definitely. Even if it is mainly just a collection of useful information rather than a real wiki, it is still useful to have. Pages on the characters etc. would still definitely be useful, though, if only to allow people to find the relevant information.


Wiki organizing, well, I'd have a better idea of how it would work if there's enough yes votes to convince me buying it is a good idea. I mean, we could always certainly add a "Wiki Admins" userclass or something. It depends on how extensively it integrates into forum structures and whatnot, something I don't know without actually having the package, of course.

Well, I would assume it would be the existing admins, mostly. Hopefully the community is small enough (and what disagreements we might have predictable enough) that we won't need too much moderation (because I don't think the admins should be decreeing whether Dark Sakura is "really" Sakura or whatever), and I doubt there is anyone on this forum who is truly impartial enough to judge a TM argument anyway (for the same reason that Wikipedia admins are discouraged from judging debates on pages they edited). We all have our own views on the Nasuverse, after all, or else we wouldn't be here....


Also imagines that you could ban certain people from editing certain pages too.

Hell no. Just because my opinions are strong, that doesn't mean I don't have useful information to add. Obviously, long edit wars that are going nowhere are another matter entirely, but those can be dealt with without such a stringent restriction.


Is just going to use Sakura as an example since she was brought up. Surely, there's no problem in mentioning that she killed people in the Heaven's Feel arc, which is fact. No doubt that the section that summarizes her role in the Heaven's Feel arc would elaborate on this further.

The implications of that are a lot worse than the reality, though. It's like having an article about some celebrity that had once been in the army and, at the top, saying "he killed 100 people" without any context as to why.

Kratosirving
May 7th, 2012, 10:39 AM
One way to solve edit wars is that the users that are primarily involved in them and acting completely childish can get permabanned from editing the page.


No matter what the eventual action would be in regards to edit wars...is it bad that I already foresee wars in at least the following character pages?

Sakura
Arcueid
Medea
Saber

I3uster
May 7th, 2012, 10:43 AM
Dunno, Dartz is pretty good in sourcing his information, I doubt he'd start an edit war.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 10:54 AM
One way to solve edit wars is that the users that are primarily involved in them and acting completely childish can get permabanned from editing the page.

That's totally unfair, though. It just means that the side with the most support ends up winning, regardless of the strength of their argument or whether they're being reasonable.


No matter what the eventual action would be in regards to edit wars...is it bad that I already foresee wars in at least the following character pages?

Sakura
Arcueid
Medea
Saber

No, it's not surprising. They're the controversial topics, so it figures that a wiki page about them will be controversial....


Dunno, Dartz is pretty good in sourcing his information, I doubt he'd start an edit war.

That doesn't mean it won't cause edit-wars.

terraablaze
May 7th, 2012, 10:59 AM
Dunno, Dartz is pretty good in sourcing his information, I doubt he'd start an edit war.

He's good at having sources. Whether his sources mean what he says they mean is sometimes up for debate.

Bloble
May 7th, 2012, 11:21 AM
How about for editing controversial pages there could be some wiki moderators that have to approve any changes to each page before they are shown? That should prevent any edit wars, or at least slow them down.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 11:23 AM
How about for editing controversial pages there could be some wiki moderators that have to approve any changes to each page before they are shown? That should prevent any edit wars, or at least slow them down.

Honestly, I don't see the point. It just makes life more difficult for everyone (especially given that there are not that many mods around).

If we do get into edit wars, then so what? They'll calm down eventually, and it's not like this is Wikipedia, where the detailed content of the wiki is the whole point of the site. Maybe if a edit war does occur, the mods could temporarily take that approach, but having it done permanently is not a good idea.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 11:40 AM
Well, that is of course obvious but, even with that, you still have to be clear what is an "interpretation", and somtimes such a thing is just unavoidable.

If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at the Wikipedia article on "Taiwan". There is a long argument on the talk page about whether it's a "state", a "sovereign state", a "country", as "disputed territory" or God-knows what else. Not to mention issues with the name itself....

Obviously, such things should be avoided as much as possible, but sometimes it's quite difficult to do so, and we have to be very careful to ensure that the article doesn't imply things it shouldn't, too (such as, for example, if you say Sakura "killed" thousands of people, the implication there is that she is at fault for it when, really (IMO at least), she's not).
Very easy! [citation needed]
No citation? Not factual. Away it goes.
Simple!


Yeah, definitely. Even if it is mainly just a collection of useful information rather than a real wiki, it is still useful to have. Pages on the characters etc. would still definitely be useful, though, if only to allow people to find the relevant information.
Wiki pages are collections of useful info?


Well, I would assume it would be the existing admins, mostly. Hopefully the community is small enough (and what disagreements we might have predictable enough) that we won't need too much moderation (because I don't think the admins should be decreeing whether Dark Sakura is "really" Sakura or whatever), and I doubt there is anyone on this forum who is truly impartial enough to judge a TM argument anyway (for the same reason that Wikipedia admins are discouraged from judging debates on pages they edited). We all have our own views on the Nasuverse, after all, or else we wouldn't be here....
No way, a) Forum and Wiki are different beasts and b) they just hired mods to lessen their workload. Why would they get more work piled on them? Especially since Wiki admins tend to require a more proactive role as they not only police, but clean up and whatnot.


Hell no. Just because my opinions are strong, that doesn't mean I don't have useful information to add. Obviously, long edit wars that are going nowhere are another matter entirely, but those can be dealt with without such a stringent restriction.
You shouldn't be using useful information to smuggle your opinions, anyways.


The implications of that are a lot worse than the reality, though. It's like having an article about some celebrity that had once been in the army and, at the top, saying "he killed 100 people" without any context as to why.
That's loaded writing, of course it'd be eliminated.


That's totally unfair, though. It just means that the side with the most support ends up winning, regardless of the strength of their argument or whether they're being reasonable.
Uh, no. Ideally, both sides get a editpage-ban for starting an edit war. After all, neither was willing to compromise.


No, it's not surprising. They're the controversial topics, so it figures that a wiki page about them will be controversial....
Only if you make the mistake of writing opinion.


That doesn't mean it won't cause edit-wars.
You can't argue facts. That's why the easiest way to avoid any issues is to simply eliminate opinions attached to the facts.


If we do get into edit wars, then so what? They'll calm down eventually, and it's not like this is Wikipedia, where the detailed content of the wiki is the whole point of the site. Maybe if a edit war does occur, the mods could temporarily take that approach, but having it done permanently is not a good idea.
Edit wars spill over into the forum and turn over into flame wars. No thanks. That's when editors need to apply the Lock Hammer. Plus, having correct information's the whole point of DP sinking $70 + 35/yr on this, at the very least it's a courtesy to the dude who pays for the stuff.


He's good at having sources. Whether his sources mean what he says they mean is sometimes up for debate.
Well, the Wiki shouldn't have anything debatable on them, anyways. It should have the information (and sources) there for others to use on the forum, but there shouldn't be any opinion or interpretation attached to the info.
That also includes extrapolation and calculations of the kind Dartz's so fond of. At the very least, they'd be relegated to their own namespace outside the main wiki.


How about for editing controversial pages there could be some wiki moderators that have to approve any changes to each page before they are shown? That should prevent any edit wars, or at least slow them down.
Approval for every page and edit is too slow and cumbersome, and swamps the editors with busywork that distracts from the main issues.

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 11:50 AM
What if we made a wiki that contained just translations and nothing else.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 11:52 AM
Very easy! [citation needed]
No citation? Not factual. Away it goes.
Simple!

Of course, it that doesn't change the issue where there are multiple sources which contradict each other, which given the Nasuverse is probably quite often....

To give a non-Sakura example, the argument about Shirou tracing Excalibur. He does appear to do it in HF, but then it's said he cannot do it (rather cryptically) later on. So, did he, or didn't he...?


The editors/admins/janitors/staff/whatever. All Wikis have it.

Yeah, but how can they reasonably decide who gets to edit without pissing off the people who aren't allowed (and, that does matter, because they will still talk to them on the forum). And, for that matter, how do you do it without it appearing like you endorse their viewpoint?


Wiki pages are collections of useful info.

Yeah, but usually edited into a more easily-readable and searchable form....


No way, a) Forum and Wiki are different beasts and b) they just hired mods to lessen their workload. Why would they get more work piled on them? Especially since Wiki admins tend to require a more proactive role as they not only police, but clean up and whatnot.

It makes sense for the two to be integrated, though. Even if there are lower-level admins who have wiki control and not forum control, the top-level admins will have to be the site admins (in fact, that's required by the nature of the mod, I believe).


You shouldn't be using useful information to smuggle your opinions, anyways.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with what I just said....


That's loaded writing, of course it'd be eliminated.

Well, I'd hope so, yes....

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 12:02 PM
Of course, it that doesn't change the issue where there are multiple sources which contradict each other, which given the Nasuverse is probably quite often....

To give a non-Sakura example, the argument about Shirou tracing Excalibur. He does appear to do it in HF, but then it's said he cannot do it (rather cryptically) later on. So, did he, or didn't he...?
Say something like "Interpretations vary" or "Results inconclusive", then give all the relevant information for the reader to interpret on their own and maybe provides a link to a forum thread where the topic can be discussed. Since this is a wiki integrated with a forum, we gotta leverage that integration. The idea's for the Wiki to be a reference, not an authoritative source on all the interpretations of canon.


Yeah, but how can they reasonably decide who gets to edit without pissing off the people who aren't allowed (and, that does matter, because they will still talk to them on the forum). And, for that matter, how do you do it without it appearing like you endorse their viewpoint?
Simple: They piss the people off. Nobody said being a mod/admin/editor is a nice job. And there should be no viewpoint, otherwise they're doing their job wrong.


Yeah, but usually edited into a more easily-readable and searchable form....
I fail to see the problem. Editing won't make it lose neutrality so long as the writer is competent.


It makes sense for the two to be integrated, though. Even if there are lower-level admins who have wiki control and not forum control, the top-level admins will have to be the site admins (in fact, that's required by the nature of the mod, I believe).
Yeah, but top-level admins would be arbitrators, not editors.


Of course, but that has nothing to do with what I just said....
Well, you said "Just because my opinions are strong, that doesn't mean I don't have useful information to add." If you don't smuggle opinion with fact, then the question is immaterial and the issue resolves itself neatly since there's nothing to argue.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 12:10 PM
Say something like "Interpretations vary" or "Results inconclusive", then give all the relevant information for the reader to interpret on their own and maybe provides a link to a forum thread where the topic can be discussed. Since this is a wiki integrated with a forum, we gotta leverage that integration. The idea's for the Wiki to be a reference, not an authoritative source on all the interpretations of canon.

Fair enough....


Simple: They piss the people off. Nobody said being a mod/admin/editor is a nice job. And there should be no viewpoint, otherwise they're doing their job wrong.

Yeah, but having a bunch of people on the forum that a large chunk of it don't like is not a good idea....


I fail to see the problem. Editing won't make it lose neutrality so long as the writer is competent.

Editing it still involves adding some personal opinion, though, in general.


Yeah, but top-level admins would be arbitrators, not editors.

Well, yes, mostly (although I would imagine that they would make some contributions, particularly in the case of Elf and Altima), but they are still there to arbitrate. And, honestly, with the size of the community (about 90% of the posts are probably made by about 10-20 members), I think that having a huge admin layer is just overkill, to be honest.


Well, you said "Just because my opinions are strong, that doesn't mean I don't have useful information to add." If you don't smuggle opinion with fact, then the question is immaterial and the issue resolves itself neatly since there's nothing to argue.

It's not if they block me anyway....

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 12:14 PM
See, translations are great because everyone likes them and they are neutral and don't show people's opinions (usually (that Nasu/Takeuchi/Urobuchi interview translation recently, looooool))

That is why I think it would be pretty cool if we just stuck translations in there instead of bullshit subjective articles about shit we already know

Wat think

Keyne
May 7th, 2012, 12:20 PM
See, translations are great because everyone likes them and they are neutral and don't show people's opinions (usually (that Nasu/Takeuchi/Urobuchi interview translation recently, looooool))

That is why I think it would be pretty cool if we just stuck translations in there instead of bullshit subjective articles about shit we already know

Wat think
Do I sense irony in this post? The feeling is very strong...

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 12:20 PM
Well, the basic concept isn't bad, but it makes it hard to actually find information if it's indexed by the source and not the subject. Also, it would be nice to have a wiki which we could reliably point newbies at for at least some idea of the characters (although I would still not recommend a wiki (especially one which would be as factual as ours would have to be to avoid long edit wars) for anyone wanting to characterise Sakura...).

Keyne
May 7th, 2012, 12:21 PM
Well, the basic concept isn't bad, but it makes it hard to actually find information if it's indexed by the source and not the subject. Also, it would be nice to have a wiki which we could reliably point newbies at for at least some idea of the characters (although I would still not recommend a wiki (especially one which would be as factual as ours would have to be to avoid long edit wars) for anyone wanting to characterise anyone...).
fix'd that 4 u

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 12:21 PM
Well, the basic concept isn't bad, but it makes it hard to actually find information if it's indexed by the source and not the subject. Also, it would be nice to have a wiki which we could reliably point newbies at for at least some idea of the characters (although I would still not recommend a wiki (especially one which would be as factual as ours would have to be to avoid long edit wars) for anyone wanting to characterise Sakura...).
Point newbies at the source material for them to get some idea of the characters. Why would they even be here otherwise?

I3uster
May 7th, 2012, 12:27 PM
Because people finish the source material and still hate Sakura I presume :p

mmmu
May 7th, 2012, 12:33 PM
I like the idea and voted yes. Having all the information more handily - and accurately - available would be most welcome, not only for the forum users but newcomers as well.

Fingolfin
May 7th, 2012, 12:33 PM
See, translations are great because everyone likes them and they are neutral and don't show people's opinions (usually (that Nasu/Takeuchi/Urobuchi interview translation recently, looooool))

That is why I think it would be pretty cool if we just stuck translations in there instead of bullshit subjective articles about shit we already know

Wat think

Oh, I've seen some downright petty edit wars in the past where trolling has been thrown all around. It's something to be apprehensive about at least.

Yeah, I agree with Kotonoha. You know, keeping it simple like that. People just don't know how to let bygones be bygones sometimes.

Nortan the Bunny
May 7th, 2012, 12:41 PM
Having a just a translation based wiki is fine with me. Is automatically assuming that any and all translations would mention who did the translation just in case any questions pop up.

As for certain troubled pages, I believe Tv Tropes has dedicated members whose job is to watch over certain pages or something. Surely we could have something similar here too. Just pick certain members who are known to be active and for their impartialness towards the subject that they're monitoring to keep an eye on certain troubled pages. If any edit wars break out, ban all the parties involved from editing the page for a certain period of time. Take more drastic measures as needed. Basically, find somebody whose job will be just to monitor a page and intervene if any problems arise.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 12:42 PM
Point newbies at the source material for them to get some idea of the characters. Why would they even be here otherwise?

There are quire a few people on the forum who even now haven't read all of the source material (me included), and quite a few who seemingly do not intend to (particularly with regards to HF).


As for certain troubled pages, I believe Tv Tropes has dedicated members whose job is to watch over certain pages or something. Surely we could have something similar here too. Just pick certain members who are known to be active and for their impartialness towards the subject that they're monitoring to keep an eye on certain troubled pages. If any edit wars break out, ban all the parties involved from editing the page for a certain period of time. Take more drastic measures as needed. Basically, find somebody whose job will be just to monitor a page and intervene if any problems arise.

Good luck in finding someone who is both active and that people can agree is "impartial"....

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 12:43 PM
There are quire a few people on the forum who even now haven't read all of the source material (me included), and quite a few who seemingly do not intend to (particularly with regards to HF).
Well fuck those people, they're not worth your time!

AND PLAY TSUKIHIME MIIIIIIIKE

lantzblades
May 7th, 2012, 01:09 PM
Well fuck those people, they're not worth your time!

AND PLAY TSUKIHIME MIIIIIIIKE

he played ciel's route and Elf has played arc's route together they have 2/5 the knowledge required. I have 100%*

*(excluding the bad ends)

I3uster
May 7th, 2012, 01:15 PM
I love the Tsuki bad ends. Compare em with the Fate bad ends.

"You give up your seals. Berserker kills you."
"You are under a geass. Bad end."

"You go out to scout. A shark eats you."
"You go batshit crzay, jump on walls and shit and become a psycho murderer with no intact limbs."

Nortan the Bunny
May 7th, 2012, 01:18 PM
Good luck in finding someone who is both active and that people can agree is "impartial"....

First things first. If you are a member of a 'troubled' character's club, you are not allowed to monitor their page. That should hopefully help eliminate basis from one side. :p The only problem is the other side. Since no anti-fanclubs exist on this site, we'll just to eliminate any people known to hate a certain character or any known trolls. Basically try to choose somebody who could care less about the character in question or is known to have no strong feelings towards the character in question.

As for choosing monitors, we could bring it up to a vote and/or nomination process. Basically, people are nominated with explanations on why they should have this job and if any dissenters exist, let them have their say.

Anyways, is kind of curious on what causes Saber flamewars. Always imagined that Shirou and Gilgamesh would be more divisive characters.

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 01:28 PM
First things first. If you are a member of a 'troubled' character's club, you are not allowed to monitor their page. That should hopefully help eliminate basis from one side. :p
Good luck having an informative Shinji page without my help. Nobody else would be willing to dig through all those side materials. :P

(Less jokey version: the people who like a specific character are usually the ones who are most informed on the character and motivated to write spergy wiki pages on them)

Nortan the Bunny
May 7th, 2012, 01:43 PM
^

Said monitor, not edit. :p (As in keep an eye on the page and resolve any issues that would arise. And ban people if necessary, if they are given that privilege. In other words, be a mod for a certain page.) Plus, this is only for the characters whose pages would cause flame wars. Not sure if Shinji's page would cause flame wars. Knows that he's a hated characer, though. Might want someone to keep eye on that page to prevent any vandalism, though.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 01:45 PM
Well, yes, mostly (although I would imagine that they would make some contributions, particularly in the case of Elf and Altima), but they are still there to arbitrate. And, honestly, with the size of the community (about 90% of the posts are probably made by about 10-20 members), I think that having a huge admin layer is just overkill, to be honest.
It's not so much the size of the community as the volume of content. Same principle as the current new mods, really. Delegation and all that.


It's not if they block me anyway....
If they block you a priori then they're doing their job wrong.


See, translations are great because everyone likes them and they are neutral and don't show people's opinions (usually (that Nasu/Takeuchi/Urobuchi interview translation recently, looooool))

That is why I think it would be pretty cool if we just stuck translations in there instead of bullshit subjective articles about shit we already know

Wat think

Subjective articles? HERESY.


Well, the basic concept isn't bad, but it makes it hard to actually find information if it's indexed by the source and not the subject. Also, it would be nice to have a wiki which we could reliably point newbies at for at least some idea of the characters (although I would still not recommend a wiki (especially one which would be as factual as ours would have to be to avoid long edit wars) for anyone wanting to characterise Sakura...).
That's why I like the idea of a Wiki: You can categorize by subject, source, incidentals and everything else you want. Cross reference the shit out of everything! The characterization issue is moot because anyone trying to base characterization on a wiki is a shitty writer either way.


Point newbies at the source material for them to get some idea of the characters. Why would they even be here otherwise?
The entire point's to centralize the information. Is this you being elitist because you had to hunt down the info yourself or something? I'm really baffled by the reasoning in your opposition. I only see benefits, and nobody's forcing you to collaborate.


Good luck in finding someone who is both active and that people can agree is "impartial"....
I'm active, and an impartial wiki's my utopia. :D

eddyak
May 7th, 2012, 01:53 PM
"You go out to scout in the top floor of a hotel. You are eaten by a shark."
Fixed.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 01:54 PM
I'm active, and an impartial wiki's my utopia. :D

Yeah, I'm sure as hell not going to accept you as "impartial" on the topic of Sakura....

Black Sword
May 7th, 2012, 01:57 PM
Kyte's Noble Phantasm will be Impartial Wiki - Ever Distant Utopia.

More seriously, a centralized wiki that somehow managed to dodge all the problems from our more, ah, biased members would be lovely. It won't dodge them, but still.

Monitors and such would likely have to wait until after the wiki was in operation for some time and the moderators got sick of doing all the work themselves.

EDIT: Mike, you wouldn't accept anyone of us as impartial on Sakura, in the same way all of us know that on this topic you're about as impartial on this as a News Corp. newspaper on BlueSkyB.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 02:04 PM
Yeah, I'm sure as hell not going to accept you as "impartial" on the topic of Sakura....

I give exactly as many fucks about Sakura as it's needed for the job: None. Ain't gonna bias in either direction.
Plus, that's why there'd be people supervising. If I did the job wrong and failed to be the impartial editor I should be? The admins remove me, simple as that. That's the magic of a two-tier system.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 02:11 PM
EDIT: Mike, you wouldn't accept anyone of us as impartial on Sakura, in the same way all of us know that on this topic you're about as impartial on this as a News Corp. newspaper on BlueSkyB.

I certainly wouldn't accept you or Kyte as unbiased, no. And nor would I seriously claim that I am unbiased (although I do try to not be intentionally biased). There are people on here who are reasonably unbiased about her, though, I would imagine (although probably not very many...). It's pretty hard for people to be entirely unbiased about a topic they have at least some interest in, though, and we wouldn't be here if we didn't have an interest in the Nasuverse, so....

Keyne
May 7th, 2012, 02:13 PM
(although I do try to not be intentionally biased)
o.o

eddyak
May 7th, 2012, 02:15 PM
Monitors and such would likely have to wait until after the wiki was in operation for some time and the moderators got sick of doing all the work themselves.
Four hours. A little less.

My estimation.

Black Sword
May 7th, 2012, 02:18 PM
I certainly wouldn't accept you or Kyte as unbiased, no. And nor would I seriously claim that I am unbiased (although I do try to not be intentionally biased). There are people on here who are reasonably unbiased about her, though, I would imagine (although probably not very many...). It's pretty hard for people to be entirely unbiased about a topic they have at least some interest in, though, and we wouldn't be here if we didn't have an interest in the Nasuverse, so....

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 02:21 PM
^

Said monitor, not edit. :p (As in keep an eye on the page and resolve any issues that would arise. And ban people if necessary, if they are given that privilege. In other words, be a mod for a certain page.) Plus, this is only for the characters whose pages would cause flame wars. Not sure if Shinji's page would cause flame wars. Knows that he's a hated characer, though. Might want someone to keep eye on that page to prevent any vandalism, though.
Mods for certain pages? Why.

Mcjon01
May 7th, 2012, 02:37 PM
Just do all the character pages in the style of Kayneth "Fast Wheels" Archibald El Melon, problem solved. Sometimes I stun myself with my genius.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 02:45 PM
Quod erat demonstrandum.

Erm, I said that I didn't think any of us would be unbiased on any topic....

qsurf
May 7th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Erm, I said that I didn't think any of us would be unbiased on any topic....
Actually Mike, there are quite a number of peeps who can be unbiased...just most of 'em tend to be Jokers as well *glares balefully at the rest of the forum*.

That said, this feature would be wonderful, I'm kinda getting sick of shifting through the wiki and Fuyuki for shreds of information only for it to be proven false or obsolete.

Satehi
May 7th, 2012, 03:51 PM
If there is to be a wiki, then I propose that at the top of Shirou's page, we put these two articles at the top, and make them big and bold or whatever to stand out, just for extra emphasis:

Divine constructs like Ea and Excalibur are non-replicable
and

http://fsn.seorinwastaken.com/rn/UBW16-06-144.jpg

Neir
May 7th, 2012, 03:55 PM
Fine, but there has to be a full page saying that Shirou can project Excalibur perfectly. :3c


Also, what do about nasu's contradictions? Do more recent things (cm#) override older material, including the games?

Satehi
May 7th, 2012, 03:56 PM
I use perfectly legitimate, entirely accurate quotes, straight from the mushroom himself, I do not know of what you speak of.

The only contradictions are the ones in your fanon.

SeiKeo
May 7th, 2012, 03:58 PM
I use perfectly legitimate, entirely accurate quotes, straight from the mushroom himself, I do not know of what you speak of.

The only contradictions are the ones in your fanon.

Good sir, you, are no food.

Satehi
May 7th, 2012, 03:59 PM
Well, I would certainly hope that I wasn't edible. Being eaten sounds painful.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 04:00 PM
Fine, but there has to be a full page saying that Shirou can project Excalibur perfectly. :3c

Also, what do about nasu's contradictions? Do more recent things (cm#) override older material, including the games?
That is not for the wiki to judge. The wiki'd just have a subtitle like: "On Shirou Projecting Excalibur" and give out all the info, contradictions included. The reader can decide what to do with the info.

Mereo Flere
May 7th, 2012, 04:08 PM
(Less jokey version: the people who like a specific character are usually the ones who are most informed on the character and motivated to write spergy wiki pages on them)

At the same time, people who like a specific character might cause other people to dislike that character with their actions and interpretations.

It should be handled on a person by person basis, really.

RadiantBeam
May 7th, 2012, 04:19 PM
I suppose when it comes to the characters, you just have to keep in mind that it's a general statement on them and that the fans themselves will have differing opinions on them. The idea of a wiki is to convey information, not to convince you whether or not you should like a character.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 04:25 PM
I suppose when it comes to the characters, you just have to keep in mind that it's a general statement on them and that the fans themselves will have differing opinions on them. The idea of a wiki is to convey information, not to convince you whether or not you should like a character.

I LIKE YOU BE MY FRIEND.

RadiantBeam
May 7th, 2012, 04:30 PM
I LIKE YOU BE MY FRIEND.

WE ALREADY ARE FRIENDS.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 04:30 PM
I suppose when it comes to the characters, you just have to keep in mind that it's a general statement on them and that the fans themselves will have differing opinions on them. The idea of a wiki is to convey information, not to convince you whether or not you should like a character.

Yes, but it still has to be an accurate, unbiased and non-misleading statement about them....

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 04:31 PM
WE ALREADY ARE FRIENDS.

WE MUST BE FRIEND-ER.


Yes, but it still has to be an accurate, unbiased and non-misleading statement about them....

Well if it's not then the editor is not doing the job right.

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 04:32 PM
That is not for the wiki to judge. The wiki'd just have a subtitle like: "On Shirou Projecting Excalibur" and give out all the info, contradictions included. The reader can decide what to do with the info.
This is the solution to most of the arguments going on here.
Also, I think Koto-nee's solution is a good idea, if this one doesn't work out.

Mereo Flere
May 7th, 2012, 04:35 PM
I suppose when it comes to the characters, you just have to keep in mind that it's a general statement on them and that the fans themselves will have differing opinions on them. The idea of a wiki is to convey information, not to convince you whether or not you should like a character.

I'm not disagreeing. I just think some people's bias might be detrimental to actually being able to convey the information - and if an argument pops up and goes on for too long in the absence of new material it can sour the attitudes of everybody else working on that page.

I think it's reasonable to lock a person from a page if they prove they're being harmful towards that purpose.

RadiantBeam
May 7th, 2012, 04:38 PM
I'm not disagreeing. I just think some people's bias might be detrimental to actually being able to convey the information - and if an argument pops up and goes on for too long in the absence of new material it can sour the attitudes of everybody else working on that page.

I think it's reasonable to lock a person from a page if they prove they're being harmful towards that purpose.

Hm...

I'm not against the idea, but the only issue I see coming from it is it would cause some bad blood between the contributors/possible contributors and whoever is modding the page, especially when it comes to the more controversial characters.

Mereo Flere
May 7th, 2012, 04:41 PM
Hm...

I'm not against the idea, but the only issue I see coming from it is it would cause some bad blood between the contributors/possible contributors and whoever is modding the page, especially when it comes to the more controversial characters.

Continuing the argument will also cause some bad blood, and an actual edit war is never good. At the very least, the wiki should stay consistent; it's not much use if the information changes constantly in the absence of new material.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 04:51 PM
If a page has no new material to add and it keeps getting edited, then you can just lock it until new material arrives.

RadiantBeam
May 7th, 2012, 04:51 PM
Continuing the argument will also cause some bad blood, and an actual edit war is never good. At the very least, the wiki should stay consistent; it's not much use if the information changes constantly in the absence of new material.

All right, fair enough point. I suppose bad blood is unavoidable no matter what option you choose to go with.

Mereo Flere
May 7th, 2012, 04:52 PM
If a page has no new material to add and it keeps getting edited, then you can just lock it until new material arrives.

There's that as well. Less offensive to a specific person, too.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 04:52 PM
Hm...

I'm not against the idea, but the only issue I see coming from it is it would cause some bad blood between the contributors/possible contributors and whoever is modding the page, especially when it comes to the more controversial characters.

Definitely. If I get blocked from editing the Sakura page by some idiot who claims I am being "disruptive" by editing it so it's actually accurate, then I will be very unhappy.


Continuing the argument will also cause some bad blood, and an actual edit war is never good. At the very least, the wiki should stay consistent; it's not much use if the information changes constantly in the absence of new material.

No, the wiki should be accurate, not consistent. Obviously, over time, you'd hope that it would become stable, but stability is not something to aim for in itself. If the content is wrong, then it should be changed.


If a page has no new material to add and it keeps getting edited, then you can just lock it until new material arrives.

Again, just no. The page should be accurate, not consistent. If there is an edit war going on, then it needs to be resolved by actually resolving the fundamental issue with the page, not by arbitrarily locking it or by blocking people from editing it.

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 04:54 PM
At the same time, people who like a specific character might cause other people to dislike that character with their actions and interpretations.

It should be handled on a person by person basis, really.
It doesn't really matter if they "cause other people to dislike that character" if the information's accurate.

Also just for the sake of being Captain Obvious: you're talking about Mike.

Neir
May 7th, 2012, 04:54 PM
FULL CIRCLE :D

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 04:56 PM
Perhaps we could have information added to a page, but at some point just lock the page and have people submit changes to make, to be audited for accuracy?

Basically what Flere said, actually.

Mereo Flere
May 7th, 2012, 05:00 PM
It doesn't really matter if they "cause other people to dislike that character" if the information's accurate.

Also just for the sake of being Captain Obvious: you're talking about Mike.

Yeah, you're right. If it's accurate, there's no problems.

Also, technically, I'm talking about people who I wouldn't trust for accuracy because of their bias... so yes, you're correct. But not just him.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 05:02 PM
Perhaps we could have information added to a page, but at some point just lock the page and have people submit changes to make, to be audited for accuracy?

Basically what Flere said, actually.
Too much busywork. Takes away from the core job that is monitoring for problems. Also builds fatigue on the editors.


Definitely. If I get blocked from editing the Sakura page by some idiot who claims I am being "disruptive" by editing it so it's actually accurate, then I will be very unhappy.
You're assuming this is like a forum. Nobody reports anyone. If two idiots are continually edit-warring, then both will get blocked off. Why? Because they were edit-warring in first place.


No, the wiki should be accurate, not consistent. Obviously, over time, you'd hope that it would become stable, but stability is not something to aim for in itself. If the content is wrong, then it should be changed.

Again, just no. The page should be accurate, not consistent. If there is an edit war going on, then it needs to be resolved by actually resolving the fundamental issue with the page, not by arbitrarily locking it or by blocking people from editing it.
If the content didn't reach stability in a week, then it's not objective and it must be excised anyways.
Once again: If everything's factual, there's nothing to discuss, and nothing to war over. If your definition of accuracy includes non-factual stuff, then you will get blocked anyways for failing to get the point of the wiki.
If a troll decides to change a fact (not unheard of in Wikipedia), then you can just go and revert the change and go on your merry way. If it happens again, tell an editor and he'll happily block the troll from further edits.

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 05:05 PM
Too much busywork. Takes away from the core job that is monitoring for problems. Also builds fatigue on the editors.

I'm not familiar with the average traffic for editing a wikia, so I'll take your word for it.


If the content didn't reach stability in a week, then it's not objective and it must be excised anyways.
Once again: If everything's factual, there's nothing to discuss, and nothing to war over. If your definition of accuracy includes non-factual stuff, then you will get blocked anyways for failing to get the point of the wiki.

I'm mostly of the same opinion. Keep the wikia entirely judgement free to avoid problems like this.

Kotonoha
May 7th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Hymn, it's not on Wikia, that's the point. :P

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Perhaps we could have information added to a page, but at some point just lock the page and have people submit changes to make, to be audited for accuracy?

Basically what Flere said, actually.

Again, that's just silly. It creates too much work for the moderators, and also means that it's no longer really a wiki, and will likely end up being out-of-date and inaccurate due to necessary changes not being made. One individual should not decide what is and isn't "correct".

And, honestly, I don't see how it would help. There might be some edit warring when a page first has new content added to it, but I very much doubt it's going to continue back-and-forth indefinitely, and if it does then we have a problem which arbitrarily locking it on some version is not going to fix. All it will do is make adding new information a lot more awkward, and thus cause people to lose interest in the whole thing, and it to lose credibility amongst people who disagree with the article's editor.

If you're going to impose a system like that, then I'd rather not have a "wiki" at all, because at least that way we don't have some horrible sham which people will pretend is community-owned and updated when, in actual fact, it will be owned by a small collection of editors and everyone else will not bother.

The point of the wiki should be that no-one can dispute its accuracy (on this forum, at least). If they can, then they should be editing it such that it ceases to be inaccurate (likely by removing the disputed section altogether), and if they don't then their argument clearly does not hold water (unless the other members are being unreasonable, of course). If you have editors who are in direct control of the articles and decide what counts as "fact", that ceases to be true, and if we're going to do that we might as well point people at the TM wiki with the usual caveats applied....


You're assuming this is like a forum. Nobody reports anyone. If two idiots are continually edit-warring, then both will get blocked off. Why? Because they were edit-warring in first place.

But what if one of them is blatantly wrong, or trolling...?


If the content didn't reach stability in a week, then it's not objective and it must be excised anyways.

Well, that's not always true (I doubt all of us know the content of the games off-by-heart) but, yes, in general it should be stabilising pretty fast, excepting the occasional minor edit and, of course, the influx of new info.


Once again: If everything's factual, there's nothing to discuss, and nothing to war over. If your definition of accuracy includes non-factual stuff, then you will get blocked anyways for failing to get the point of the wiki.
If a troll decides to change a fact (not unheard of in Wikipedia), then you can just go and revert the change and go on your merry way. If it happens again, tell an editor and he'll happily block the troll from further edits.

Of couse. That's the idea of it. There may be some disputes about what is "factual", but as long as we stick to that we should be able to avoid edit wars.

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 05:08 PM
Again, that's just silly. It creates too much work for the moderators, and also means that it's no longer really a wiki, and will likely end up being out-of-date and inaccurate due to necessary changes not being made. One individual should not decide what is and isn't "correct".
How much new information do we get anyways? Not much, really. Besides, it's not like you'd know this new information until it gets translated, and then it's up to the translator themself to add the information.

Personally, I think locking pages after information is added is a pretty good idea. Although, that might make things take after the encyclopedia aspect and not the wiki aspect. Not that I care =P

Cruor
May 7th, 2012, 05:14 PM
Ya, sure why not.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 05:14 PM
If anything legitimately contested you can always lock the page and link to a thread for the issue to get resolved. Gotta leverage that integration, man!

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 05:14 PM
Good point.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 05:17 PM
But what if one of them is blatantly wrong, or trolling...?
This is a very valid concern: My opinion? Ban both anyways. If one is blatantly wrong, you can tell an editor and he'll remove the troll far more effectively than a regular user ever will. In this sense, the ban on the "innocent" party is not for trolling, but for failing to operate according to the rules of conduct of the wiki.

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 05:21 PM
A tempban anyways, permaban is too much for a first offense, especially for the "innocent" party.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 05:23 PM
How much new information do we get anyways? Not much, really. Besides, it's not like you'd know this new information until it gets translated, and then it's up to the translator themself to add the information.

I think you're making a false assumption about the way content will be added, to be honest. The existing knowledge about the Nasuverse is rather fragementory, and it will take some while to get all the information together, particularly given how good some of the members are at procrastination....


Personally, I think locking pages after information is added is a pretty good idea. Although, that might make things take after the encyclopedia aspect and not the wiki aspect. Not that I care =P

It ceases to be worth doing if we're going to do that, because it's not a community wiki any more, it's a site with pages written by one arbitrarily-chosen editor who may or may not be reliable. Certainly, in that case I'd say there's no point in having pages for individual characters, because they'll just be horribly out of date and probably inaccurate anyway. No-one will bother going through the steps necessary to add new information, and we probably won't find enough people who both care enough about an article to moderate every change and are impartial enough to be trusted to do so.


A tempban anyways, permaban is too much for a first offense, especially for the "innocent" party.

I think you're being way too harsh here, and assuming way more organisation (and interest) than we will likely have. This is not Wikipedia, with a large set of highly-interestred admins, it's more like TV Tropes in the way it will likely end up working, where the users mostly resolve their issues and only involve the admins if the disputes get really out of hand (and I don't see what the problem with that is, to be honest, for a wiki like this).

If this is how it is going to go (both the ban thing and the locking thing), then I would vote no, because it's just going to cause hassle and it's not going to be accurate anyway. So, I'd like to know if this would be the intention before I make any decision on whether I support this or not.

Also, I'd really like to know where you're going to find all these editors and admins who can be relied upon to make such decisions without infuriating half the forum in the process. Because I sure as hell can't think of anyone who is both unbiased and also likely to care....

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 05:23 PM
A tempban anyways, permaban is too much for a first offense, especially for the "innocent" party.

Naturally. Maybe a page-specific ban, with an annotation to watch further behavior and escalate as needed.

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 05:25 PM
Hymn, it's not on Wikia, that's the point. :P

My bad, slip of the tongue.


Again, that's just silly. It creates too much work for the moderators, and also means that it's no longer really a wiki, and will likely end up being out-of-date and inaccurate due to necessary changes not being made. One individual should not decide what is and isn't "correct".

Uh....no. I think you're misinterpreting what I meant.

After the articles have been made, what is considered fact and not has been agreed upon and the language has been properly sanitized (the idea of which sticks in my craw, but is clearly necessary), I doubt all the many new suggestions would come up. Again, I don't have traffic figures, but once the main information has been hammered out, everything's details.


And, honestly, I don't see how it would help. There might be some edit warring when a page first has new content added to it, but I very much doubt it's going to continue back-and-forth indefinitely, and if it does then we have a problem which arbitrarily locking it on some version is not going to fix.

This would be where I'd suggest the editor in charge makes an executive decision. By acknowledging room for interpretation because lolnasu and story contradicts itself, or whatever's appropriate at the time. Something to stop it and get people to move on. It's not a forum, we can't let the issue be argued indefinitely.


All it will do is make adding new information a lot more awkward, and thus cause people to lose interest in the whole thing, and it to lose credibility amongst people who disagree with the article's editor.

If the point is to add only what's fact, such as stating what happens in the story as connected events instead of interpreting and judging said events, it seems fine to me. In theory.


If you're going to impose a system like that,

Time out.

No, I am not the one imposing a system. Do not put words in my mouth. I offered a suggestion.


then I'd rather not have a "wiki" at all, because at least that way we don't have some horrible sham which people will pretend is community-owned and updated when, in actual fact, it will be owned by a small collection of editors and everyone else will not bother.

Pretty sure the only people who can claim to own it are maybe the admins. Besides, the whole point of the idea was to open it to edits, get it right (for a given definition that I'm sure we can dispute all day), and lock it up afterwards so now one can go on a massive edit streak.


The point of the wiki should be that no-one can dispute its accuracy (on this forum, at least).

For once we seem on the same page.

I say do exactly that, and then put a padlock on it so it stays that way, barring minor changes. Sometimes there's a spelling mistake, sometimes a setence isn't very clearly, or someone has a better picture. That kind of stuff.


If they can, then they should be editing it such that it ceases to be inaccurate (likely by removing the disputed section altogether), and if the edit is reverted then either their argument does not hold water or else other people are being unreasonable.

That doesn't work on the forums. If we really did get to wiki down to bare facts, then there shouldn't be arguments in the first place. Once we get there, lock.


If you have editors who are in direct control of the articles and decide what counts as "fact", that ceases to be true, and if we're going to do that we might as well point people at the TM wiki with the usual caveats applied....

Nooo.....editors who, after a topic is 'finished' and locked, and decide to make changes later on or reopen a topic.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 05:27 PM
If this is how it is going to go (both the ban thing and the locking thing), then I would vote no, because it's just going to cause hassle and it's not going to be accurate anyway. So, I'd like to know if this would be the intention before I make any decision on whether I support this or not.
Also, I'd really like to know where you're going to find all these editors and admins who can be relied upon to make such decisions without infuriating half the forum in the process. Because I sure as hell can't think of anyone who is both unbiased and also likely to care....

Ruru is unbiased and cares? I care, and I listen to Ruru enough to heed her if she tells me I'm being biased?
Anyways that particular concern is silly because as much as I talk as if I were admin I totally am not and could very possibly not even be picked in first place. XD

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 05:35 PM
Naturally. Maybe a page-specific ban, with an annotation to watch further behavior and escalate as needed.

Again, I think you're being too harsh here. This is not Wikipedia, stop treating it like it is....


Uh....no. I think you're misinterpreting what I meant.

After the articles have been made, what is considered fact and not has been agreed upon and the language has been properly sanitized (the idea of which sticks in my craw, but is clearly necessary), I doubt all the many new suggestions would come up. Again, I don't have traffic figures, but once the main information has been hammered out, everything's details.

Perhaps, but in that case, why bother locking it? Anyone who comes in and significantly edits an article that was pretty much completed six months ago is likely to get their edit reverted fast.


This would be where I'd suggest the editor in charge makes an executive decision. By acknowledging room for interpretation because lolnasu and story contradicts itself, or whatever's appropriate at the time. Something to stop it and get people to move on. It's not a forum, we can't let the issue be argued indefinitely.

And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.


If the point is to add only what's fact, such as stating what happens in the story as connected events instead of interpreting and judging said events, it seems fine to me. In theory.

But, in that case, it's not necessary. If someone edits the article unnecessarily, it will just get reverted again.


Time out.

No, I am not the one imposing a system. Do not put words in my mouth. I offered a suggestion.

I meant "you" in the plural, not you individually....


Pretty sure the only people who can claim to own it are maybe the admins.

No, the point of a wiki is that it's owned by the community as a whole. Admins exist, yes, but they do not control the content.


Besides, the whole point of the idea was to open it to edits, get it right (for a given definition that I'm sure we can dispute all day), and lock it up afterwards so now one can go on a massive edit streak.

Why is that necessary, though? Why does it matter if someone does "go on a massive edit streak"? You just revert their changes if they're wrong, and if they're valid then you keep them....

And, besides, I don't think there are enough people interested enough that a editor for each page is plausible, or that having editors makes sense at all. You're just going to end up annoying the people who aren't editors, and then the few editors will be left to do all the work. Then, the whole thing will fall over and die.


For once we seem on the same page.

I say do exactly that, and then put a padlock on it so it stays that way, barring minor changes.

I don't see why we need to lock it, though. Further, just because no-one disputed the accuracy six months ago, that doesn't mean they won't come across some new piece of information that means they dispute it now.


Sometimes there's a spelling mistake, sometimes a setence isn't very clearly, or someone has a better picture. That kind of stuff.

And these are exactly the sort of things that won't get changed if you need editor approval. People just won't bother.


That doesn't work on the forums.

That's because the forums are not about facts. A wiki is.


If we really did get to wiki down to bare facts, then there shouldn't be arguments in the first place. Once we get there, lock.

Yeah, until new facts come in, and then the whole thing falls apart.


Nooo.....editors who, after a topic is 'finished' and locked, and decide to make changes later on or reopen a topic.

And how can you trust them?


Ruru is unbiased and cares? I care, and I listen to Ruru enough to heed her if she tells me I'm being biased?

Is she?

I honestly don't know whether I would consider her opinion of Sakura to be "unbiased"....


Anyways that particular concern is silly because as much as I talk as if I were admin I totally am not and could very possibly not even be picked in first place. XD

You're not, no, but Hymn is a mod, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be unbiased....

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 05:38 PM
And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.
If you want someone un-anti-Sakura that much, I'll do it. Kyte is pressing himself for editor, but I know you don't like Kyte. Is that good enough?

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 05:41 PM
And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.
You're assuming only one person'd pull such an "executive decision".


Yeah, until new facts come in, and then the whole thing falls apart.
Unless you unlock the page.


And how can you trust them?
The admins do? That's why they get elected.


Is she?
I honestly don't know whether I would consider her opinion of Sakura to be "unbiased"....
Ruru is the most unbiased and level-headed person in the entire forum, if she's not biased then nobody is.


You're not, no, but Hymn is a mod, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be unbiased....
Nobody said mods would have any power in the wiki?

On a more general topic: You've already acknowledged solutions for the very topics you're raising against HoR. Are you being contrary on purpose?

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 05:44 PM
If you want someone un-anti-Sakura that much, I'll do it. Kyte is pressing himself for editor, but I know you don't like Kyte. Is that good enough?

I don't actually know your opinion on her and, whilst you may not be "anti-Sakura", I'm not sure that you're truly unbiased. Better than Kyte, certainly, but then he is most definitely anti-Sakura.

But, regardless, I don't like the idea of having such an editor at all. It is not necessary, and it is totally contrary to the point of having a wiki in the first place. If we're going to do that, we might as well just have a bunch of threads which the owner or a mod can edit on request, because that's essentially all this wiki will be. No new information will get added unless the editor has the time to go out looking for it (and, IIRC, you lack that time).


You're assuming only one person'd pull such an "executive decision".

Well, perhaps.

But, regardless, I really don't see the point in locking pages like that, certainly not pre-emptively. It defeats the whole point of having a wiki, and IMO will not be necessary. Because, despite what you might think about me, I am not going to start editing pages about Sakura that were written six months ago unless I have a damn good reason for it (and I will explain why I am doing so, too).


Unless you unlock the page.

Which requires people to bother asking the admins to do so. Which I bet a lot of them won't.

Honestly, what reason is there for locking the pages at all? It's not going to be a high-volume wiki, I'm sure the mods can deal with any arguments or edit wars which do arise without needing to go to the extent of banning people or locking pages (except in extreme cases). It just makes everyone's life more difficult.

If an edit war does happen a long time after the page as first created, it'll be over a change which is reasonable (e.g. based on new information). None of us is going to come in and change around carefully-decided wording six months after the fact, and if we do it'll just get reverted again anyway.


Ruru is the most unbiased and level-headed person in the entire forum, if she's not biased then nobody is.

Does she not have opinions on the characters, though?


Nobody said mods would have any power in the wiki?

Perhaps, but the admins trusted him to moderate, so why not to look after the wiki...?

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 05:50 PM
(and, IIRC, you lack that time).
Leo, this is what happens when you make fun of me. :<

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 05:50 PM
Perhaps, but in that case, why bother locking it? Anyone who comes in and significantly edits an article that was pretty much completed six months ago is likely to get their edit reverted fast.

Easy. Deterrent. And instead of making it an easily fixed mistake, make it so that it can't be made to begin with.

This does assume relatively little alterations to be made afterwards, so few that they can be done on a case-by-case basis. That would be a flaw. Couldn't be used if lots of suggestions, valid or otherwise, were made and continued to be made after the page was locked.


And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.

You seem to think I already have an evil plan or something mapped out.

It's a suggestion Mike. Speculation. That's the point of talking it out, testing the idea.


But, in that case, it's not necessary. If someone edits the article unnecessarily, it will just get reverted again.

And some people may do it just for a laugh. I favor prevention over cure in this case.


I meant "you" in the plural, not you individually....

Fair enough.


No, the point of a wiki is that it's owned by the community as a whole. Admins exist, yes, but they do not control the content.

Technically speaking, reverting the page after a bad change is made is exactly that. I don't think you have room to stand on this point.


Why is that necessary, though? Why does it matter if someone does "go on a massive edit streak"? You just revert their changes if they're wrong, and if they're valid then you keep them....

Because it means someone has to clean up after them, and that's assuming some doesn't go on a counter edit streak. Better to screen them from the beginning and prevent an edit war.


And, besides, I don't think there are enough people interested enough that a editor for each page is plausible, or that having editors makes sense at all. You're just going to end up annoying the people who aren't editors, and then the few editors will be left to do all the work. Then, the whole thing will fall over and die.

The idea would indeed hinge upon not many edits coming up after the pages are locked, yes.


I don't see why we need to lock it, though. Further, just because no-one disputed the accuracy six months ago, that doesn't mean they won't come across some new piece of information that means they dispute it now.

And that's why we leave the option to change it open, and should lots of material come out, reopen the page. Or portions of it.


And these are exactly the sort of things that won't get changed if you need editor approval. People just won't bother.

What, no faith in conscientious, nitpicking community?


That's because the forums are not about facts. A wiki is.

Alright. Assuming we can get down to 'just facts', this assumes that eventually we reach a point where we have 'definite facts' and 'disputed facts.' Or plain speculation. So the facts stay on the wikia and get locked up until such a time where more come up. I see no problem. Seems to me like people want this feature to prevent misinformation.


Yeah, until new facts come in, and then the whole thing falls apart.

No, then people unlock the pages for open editing. Admittedly this would probably be a rather trying time to keep up though, so plans should probably be thought out.


And how can you trust them?

Presumably by the admins choosing someone they trust, putting it in their hands, see what happens, and clean up if necessary.

And then we get on with our lives.


Is she?

I honestly don't know whether I would consider her opinion of Sakura to be "unbiased"....

And then people question whether your judgement is unbiased, you question something else, and then it never ends.

At some point you make a choice and let the dice fall where they may.


You're not, no, but Hymn is a mod, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be unbiased....

Clearly you can't please everyone.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 06:02 PM
Easy. Deterrent. And instead of making it an easily fixed mistake, make it so that it can't be made to begin with.

But it also prevents people from making actually useful changes. And mistakes are easy to rectify, useful changes are not easy to pull out of the ether.


This does assume relatively little alterations to be made afterwards, so few that they can be done on a case-by-case basis. That would be a flaw. Couldn't be used if lots of suggestions, valid or otherwise, were made and continued to be made after the page was locked.

I'm not convinced that is true, though.


You seem to think I already have an evil plan or something mapped out.

It's a suggestion Mike. Speculation. That's the point of talking it out, testing the idea.

Again, it was a plural thing. The community as a whole, not you as an individual.


And some people may do it just for a laugh. I favor prevention over cure in this case.

Then just revert it, and if they're trolling block their account (for the forum too, potentially).


Technically speaking, reverting the page after a bad change is made is exactly that. I don't think you have room to stand on this point.

Non-admins can revert too, though....


Because it means someone has to clean up after them, and that's assuming some doesn't go on a counter edit streak. Better to screen them from the beginning and prevent an edit war.

No, because it also screens actually useful edits, and leaves the make-up of the article down to one individual and not the community as a whole.


The idea would indeed hinge upon not many edits coming up after the pages are locked, yes.

Which I do not believe to be the case.


And that's why we leave the option to change it open, and should lots of material come out, reopen the page. Or portions of it.

But that requires the editor to make that decision, and I do not trust them to do so reasonably, and nor do I expect people will bother to ask.


What, no faith in conscientious, nitpicking community?

Well, you clearly don't have any faith in them, so....

Your idea basically treats us like five-year-old children who can't even run a wiki properly, and puts the power in the hands of a few arbitrary people. That is not a good way to encourage involvement.


Alright. Assuming we can get down to 'just facts', this assumes that eventually we reach a point where we have 'definite facts' and 'disputed facts.' Or plain speculation. So the facts stay on the wikia and get locked up until such a time where more come up. I see no problem. Seems to me like people want this feature to prevent misinformation.

Again, if the page is undoubtedly "just facts", then why do you need to lock it? People will not edit such a thing without good reason (barring trolls, and they can be dealt with).


No, then people unlock the pages for open editing. Admittedly this would probably be a rather trying time to keep up though, so plans should probably be thought out.

Exactly, it would be very trying for the editor, in general. And, I don't think it will work that way in any case. People will just not bother to go through the hoops needed to correct the articles, and they will stay broken.


Presumably by the admins choosing someone they trust, putting it in their hands, see what happens, and clean up if necessary.

And then we get on with our lives.

I do not trust the admins to be unbiased on the nature of particular characters, though.


And then people question whether your judgement is unbiased, you question something else, and then it never ends.

At some point you make a choice and let the dice fall where they may.

Or, you treat it like Wikipedia or TV Tropes, where the articles naturally converge on something good via community consensus, and remain that way via the same consensus, with admins only involved when they are really needed.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 06:02 PM
Personally I don't favor the idea of preemptive locking. It does defeat the point of a wiki, after all. Might as well use the preexisting CMS framework and save $70+30x.

Also, I feel nobody should pull double duty. Both because too much power and because it causes burnout.

Also: So long as there are multiple mods, biases will get cancelled out, anyways. All this speculation about bias revolves around the idea of a single person making all the decisions, which is tbh a ridiculous notion.

Therefore: Mike, HoR, were're just retreading previously discussed points. How about we chill out and wait for the poll to close? :)

SeiKeo
May 7th, 2012, 06:04 PM
Or, you treat it like Wikipedia or TV Tropes, where the articles naturally converge on something good via community consensus, and remain that way via the same consensus, with admins only involved when they are really needed.

But TVTropes isn't good.

lantzblades
May 7th, 2012, 06:11 PM
But TVTropes isn't good.

see i'm not the only one who doesn't accept TVT.

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 06:13 PM
[18:15] <Kyte> [18:12] <Lianru> I really want the BL wiki to be something more like a compilation of all the stuff we've translated and gathered // +
[18:14] <Aces> What Lianru said
[18:14] <Aces> I think that's a better idea

If that's the case we probably don't even need to spend money on the wiki itself, but that's only if people agree with me.

terraablaze
May 7th, 2012, 06:15 PM
Are we bashing TvTropes? I can bash TvTropes too.

lantzblades
May 7th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Are we bashing TvTropes? I can bash TvTropes too.




ppl misunderstood me awhile back when they used tvt to site mary sues and such. my reply was a bit harsh and misunderstood. but the idea that the fact that others here don't trust TVT validiates my statement.

SeiKeo
May 7th, 2012, 06:24 PM
ppl misunderstood me awhile back when they used tvt to site mary sues and such. my reply was a bit harsh and misunderstood. but the idea that the fact that others here don't trust TVT validiates my statement.

Well, their Mary Sue pages and others are right, it's just that a fair bit of the rest of TVTropes is a perfect example of neckbeard creepiness, even more than we are sometimes.

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 06:25 PM
Personally I don't favor the idea of preemptive locking. It does defeat the point of a wiki, after all. Might as well use the preexisting CMS framework and save $70+30x.

Exactly....


Also, I feel nobody should pull double duty. Both because too much power and because it causes burnout.

Well, the admins will have to, at least, by default. The rest I'm not sure about. I don't know how many others we can find who are suitable, to be honest....


Also: So long as there are multiple mods, biases will get cancelled out, anyways. All this speculation about bias revolves around the idea of a single person making all the decisions, which is tbh a ridiculous notion.

Well, yes, true, but less so if you're doing things like locking articles to most editors.


Therefore: Mike, HoR, were're just retreading previously discussed points. How about we chill out and wait for the poll to close? :)

I've not voted yet, because my opinion depends a lot on issues like this....


But TVTropes isn't good.

Perhaps not, but the editing system does work reasonably well there. The major difference is that, here, the admins (and everyone else) actually has a decent idea what they're talking about.

Lycodrake
May 7th, 2012, 06:25 PM
ppl misunderstood me awhile back when they used tvt to site mary sues and such. my reply was a bit harsh and misunderstood. but the idea that the fact that others here don't trust TVT validiates my statement.
Disliking TV Tropes doesn't mean that they agree with you that Mary Sue has a subjective definition.

I3uster
May 7th, 2012, 06:27 PM
Wrong thread for this, eh?

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 06:30 PM
Well, the admins will have to, at least, by default. The rest I'm not sure about. I don't know how many others we can find who are suitable, to be honest....
Well that'd be a tragedy but it happens.


Well, yes, true, but less so if you're doing things like locking articles to most editors.
Some definitions: I'm using "Editor" to refer to the wiki equivalent of mods. They can lock and unlock as they please. Above them are admins. Below them are users.
Therefore, if a rogue editor locks a page, any other editor can just unlock it. No fuss, no harm.
Constant errors in judgement? Editor gets kicked out of the team. All very simple.


I've not voted yet, because my opinion depends a lot on issues like this....
It's currently 73.91%/26.09%, wanna make your mind up quick.


Perhaps not, but the editing system does work reasonably well there. The major difference is that, here, the admins (and everyone else) actually has a decent idea what they're talking about.
Dunno, there's been more than one debacle and lots of people disapprove of the current state of TvT management.

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 06:35 PM
Therefore: Mike, HoR, were're just retreading previously discussed points. How about we chill out and wait for the poll to close? :)

This is true, and I don't particularly feel any incentive to argue it further. It's a testing ground for ideas that may or may not happen, and it looks like a lot of people have made up their minds.

But my pride! One thing must be answered or I shall have to commit seppuku!


Your idea basically treats us like five-year-old children who can't even run a wiki properly

No one trusts five year olds in the first place.

Evil little hellions. This is why you scare the pants of them with stories of the boogeyman. Boogeyman don't come, but the little bastards shut up for a while. Boogeyman does come, problem solved!

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Well that'd be a tragedy but it happens.

Eh, what?


Some definitions: I'm using "Editor" to refer to the wiki equivalent of mods. They can lock and unlock as they please. Above them are admins. Below them are users.
Therefore, if a rogue editor locks a page, any other editor can just unlock it. No fuss, no harm.
Constant errors in judgement? Editor gets kicked out of the team. All very simple.

Well, yes, of course. I meant in the case where permanently locking a page was the rule rather than the exception, like some people were suggesting.


It's currently 73.91%/26.09%, wanna make your mind up quick.

I think quite a few of those changed their minds, though....


Dunno, there's been more than one debacle and lots of people disapprove of the current state of TvT management.

Well, yeah, because Fast Eddie is a moron, and many of the admins are no better (I have personal experience of this). But, even so, the way the editing works is fine. The problems come when the mods do get involved.

Lycodrake
May 7th, 2012, 06:37 PM
But my pride! One thing must be answered or I shall have to commit seppuku!
Don't you mean sudoku? :neco_arc:

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 06:38 PM
Don't you mean sudoku? :neco_arc:

>_>

No. I meant seppuku. Look it up.

Lycodrake
May 7th, 2012, 06:39 PM
>_>
No. I meant seppuku. Look it up.
I was trying to make a joke. One I thought people knew. ;__;

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 06:39 PM
This is true, and I don't particularly feel any incentive to argue it further. It's a testing ground for ideas that may or may not happen, and it looks like a lot of people have made up their minds.

But my pride! One thing must be answered or I shall have to commit seppuku!
Then seppuku you shalt commit.

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Then seppuku you shalt commit.

But....but I already answered! I am honor-bound to preach the evil of children, and honor has been satisfied!


I was trying to make a joke. One I thought people knew. ;__;

Fell flat with me. Sorry.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 06:42 PM
Fine. Btw, you're setting a bad example for the ikle firsties. :P

Lycodrake
May 7th, 2012, 06:43 PM
Fell flat with me. Sorry.
It's alright; it can happen.
On another note...who is that in your avvie?

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 06:46 PM
Fine. Btw, you're setting a bad example for the ikle firsties. :P

....Annnnnd I feel like another joke went over my head. I heard a distinctive whoosh​, in fact.


It's alright; it can happen.
On another note...who is that in your avvie?

Moist von Lipwig, of Discworld.

He's the funny kind of con-man.

eddyak
May 7th, 2012, 06:51 PM
Moist von Lipwig, of Discworld.

He's the funny kind of con-man.
First, brofist.

Second, he was supposed to look trustworthy and honest.

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 06:56 PM
First, brofist.

Brofist accepted.


Second, he was supposed to look trustworthy and honest.

Wouldn't you trust that face?

I actually see Lipqig as more a performer than anything else. He dons the expressions appropriate to each situation. And in this case, it is all about style. Just look at that hat!

food
May 7th, 2012, 07:03 PM
If it works as a more user-friendly version of the current Translations section and Fuyuki, then yes.

If it works as an editing-battleground like TM-wiki and Wikipedia, then no. Another source of grief and drama is not good. Grief and drama are hilarious. Hilarious but not good.

Black Sword
May 7th, 2012, 07:16 PM
It's going to be another source of grief and drama. BL wiki will be a bloody battle between TM fans for the Final Say, the ultimate goal of fandoms. Canon. Fanon. Drama. White knighting. Bias. Trolling. Grief. These seven battlefields and the fans that engage in them will continue to fight until the moderators step in and make the final decisions.

No points on who I'm parodying. Even fewer points for knowing I'm essentially right.

Mereo Flere
May 7th, 2012, 07:21 PM
Contributors = Magi
Wiki = The Root
Editors = Gaia

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 07:31 PM
It's going to be another source of grief and drama. BL wiki will be a bloody battle between TM fans for the Final Say, the ultimate goal of fandoms. Canon. Fanon. Drama. White knighting. Bias. Trolling. Grief. These seven battlefields and the fans that engage in them will continue to fight until the moderators step in and make the final decisions.

No points on who I'm parodying. Even fewer points for knowing I'm essentially right.
Which is why I'm rethinking my opinion yet again.
BL, you have failed my trust.

Lycodrake
May 7th, 2012, 07:34 PM
Contributors = Magi
Wiki = The Root Penis
Editors = Gaia
Fixed for forumite accuracy. :neco_arc:

Mike1984
May 7th, 2012, 07:46 PM
Which is why I'm rethinking my opinion yet again.
BL, you have failed my trust.

Honestly, I don't think it'll be as bad as they're claiming. And, honestly, your locking idea will probably cause more arguments, not less.

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 07:47 PM
Well, I dunno. I'd have to wait and see what actually happened, I'm no psychologist.

But I'm starting to like the idea of a simple compilation much, much more than that of a wiki.

SeiKeo
May 7th, 2012, 07:49 PM
Just gonna throw out, see on the homepage all the subsections for the series? As far as I can tell, it'd not be a large ordeal to have translators submit material, and then create a new "Translation Repository" for it all.

Satehi
May 7th, 2012, 07:52 PM
People go on the homepage?

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 07:58 PM
Just gonna throw out, see on the homepage all the subsections for the series? As far as I can tell, it'd not be a large ordeal to have translators submit material, and then create a new "Translation Repository" for it all.
That's what I (kind of) suggested at the start, we should do this.

Kyte
May 7th, 2012, 08:03 PM
Which is why I'm rethinking my opinion yet again.
BL, you have failed my trust.

Goddamnit people this is why we can't have nice things.

Fuck everyone who keeps poisoning the well of BL enthusiasm. =_=

Lianru
May 7th, 2012, 08:04 PM
Sorry! D:

Lycodrake
May 7th, 2012, 08:06 PM
Sorry! D:
*hugs Ruru* Don't feel sad. You have no need to apologize. ;_;

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 7th, 2012, 08:07 PM
Well, I dunno. I'd have to wait and see what actually happened, I'm no psychologist.

But I'm starting to like the idea of a simple compilation much, much more than that of a wiki.

I agree. It's simpler, less likely to end in failure, and still very useful.