Hi, so I was thinking of possibly joining SWRP but I wasn't sure if I was overstepping on privacy (I like to give people their space and not feel like I am following them everywhere to the point of suffocation) and if I did join I wouldn't want to have a character for a month only to see the timeline change. So I guess I am asking if it's aight and, I guess, if the timeline will be ending very soon (if it is then I might just wait--also I am aware you don't want to talk about the new timeline, so I am sorry about a question regarding it. XD).
This user, claiming to be this user, has been reverting Typhuss and my edits all day. Regardless of whether he is the aforementioned user, his page content is in poor taste. I will leave it alone for you to decide.
If currentbigthing may act absolutely terrible on his "rant" and disgrace of a user page, so can I. It's my user page, and no one sees it either way so you really have better things to do than worry about a user from 2011 who never comes here anymore.
Lose the condescension. Your page's content shamelessly attacks another user, which is a violation of the Participation Guidelines, not to mention the tasteless Ebola references. If you don't want to take it from me, I'm sure Brandon here will show you the error of your ways.
I know neither you nor the user you are referencing. What I do know is that your page content violates policy, and that is only issue I have with you. If another user has harassed you in some way, speak to an admin or confront the user yourself.
Policy? No one even cares about that userpage and it's probable that no one sees it again. It doesn't hurt YOU to see it, so worry about your own business. If this user has a problem, he should contact me.
This user has engaged in an edit war over my good faith category removal edits of this article. Normally I would balk at alerting you of such a problem as I know you are busy with wikia matters, but this user is more resistant than most when being told about policy pertaining to legal edits and may be a sign leading toward refusal to acknowledge policy. I don't want to jump to conclusions though. Perhaps a voice from an authority on this wiki will help them see the fact and help them avoid future edit wars and adhere further to site rules and guidelines.
It doesn't really matter to me how many categories someone puts on their page, to be honest. We don't have any rules about that. Both of your points of view are perfectly valid. ITCO is right in that a lot of the categories are redundant. Typhuss999 would also be right in saying, though, that categories are for searchability and navigation, and more categories means it's more likely people can find and read the page.
This doesn't need admin intervention - I'm sure you two can figure this out.
I would just like to say there apparently was fanon stealing of some sort or the above user put their fanon on another article, took it out and put in this article, because the content shows up in google search results of another article (Albeit said content is not on the original article now). I notified the user and I am sure this will be resolved on their page.
Also, I know the category guideline was gone, but the editing policy allowed constructive, good faith edits and edit warring is still not allowed. I wasn't really reporting the category part moreso that other stuff. Anyway, right. Sorry.
You are talking about user Trainferry88, he has his own wiki called Jedi Archives Wiki. He stole my fanon, CC-2009, on his wiki he made CC-2079, named him Typhuss with a different number 2079 and changed 2009 to 2079. 2079's unit is the 52nd Sky Corps, which is 52nd Star Corps, he changed Star to Sky.
He also stole CT-6/988, Skyes but changed the number to CC-1376 and used the same name Skyes on his page on his wiki.
I haven't done this for my wiki in forever so I don't exactly remember but I believe it is located in the common.css page. Located here. I am sure Brandon or TK or someone will correct me if I am wrong.
I took a look at the Ninth Awards categories. I would recommend the following:
Best Miscellaneous (Event/Organization/Location/Vessel)
Best Fan Fiction
I dislike "Best Fan Art" because it seems antiquated, especially given the fact that most users here shamelessly borrow from Google Images/DeviantArt/Wookieepedia anyway, and there aren't really any quality fan-created images popping up in Recent Changes.
Similarly, there aren't many new, established authors here with a visible catalog of works from which to choose to qualify for "Best Author." In all likelihood, Sakaros or Ataru would win, which doesn't do much for the community seeing as they've won in the past.
I was thinking perhaps "Best Miscellaneous" should be further divided into "Best Organization" and "Best Vehicle." A brief look at Recent Changes shows that other than characters, many users created articles related to organizations of which their characters are a part, as well as vehicles, primarily space ships. Obviously, this would result in more categories than perhaps desired, but I think it would cater to the types of articles that are created and edited on a daily basis.
If memory serves, we used to have "Best Light Side Character" and "Best Dark Side Character". After the deluge of them in the last year, we could probably easily get away with "Best Clone Trooper Character".
That hasn't stopped them before Kaspyon. Preferably the bigger the better as far as turnout, but even only a handful of voters is better than nothing and it may foster that community that has been missing for years now. Really the most important thing is ascertaining whether we can conjure up enough nominations for all the prospective categories.
And per the Voting policy, you only need 50 mainspace edits (and a handful of other requirements most people will meet), so even if drumming up interest proves challenging, pretty much all the active users will be able to vote.
I would personally avoid too many "Best Character" subdivisions, especially given that there isn't likely going to be enough turnout to justify a multiplicity of smaller, intensely specific categories. This time next year, post-The Force Awakens, there might be more cause for that, but not now.
While I agree with you and the overwhelming consensus of editors that changing ThePrinceOfTheNorth's "Commander Hero" to just "Hero" is in line with community standards, I think his point in this thread draws out an important issue. When he said he "couldn't find anything in the policy that said [he] couldn't have it the way it was", I looked through the Article guidelines myself, and sure enough, the requirement that ranks not be included in titles didn't survive the paring down of the Manual of Style.
I point this out not because I think TPOTN has a valid argument—I agree he doesn't—but because it might be justification for reinstating the Manual of Style in full. I know you felt the MOS was too dauntingly large as it was, but now people can't be expected to know the ins and outs of article standards. We provided TPOTN with the Article guidelines link way back when, but it didn't help, because the "no ranks in article titles" provision really isn't there.
I concede freely that, even before I was a law student, I went beyond tolerance to actual enjoyment of long, detailed policies, because I like detailed guidance and a clear and unambiguous enumeration of what is expected. But even putting my idiosyncracies aside, I think the community (and especially new writers, whom we refer to these policies) would be better served by the full MOS which they can read at once or consult by section(s) when the specific need arises, than the current, more generalized Article guidelines which run the risk of today's stillborn edit war.
I removed the rule on purpose - I'm fine if people name their pages "Commander Hero" if they want to. This isn't Wookieepedia so we don't need strict rules like that, as long as page names are grammatically accurate. TPOTN's ban was not about the page name, it was about his attitude. I had and have every intention of moving the page name back, or letting someone else do it if they are so inclined.
The only article guidelines are the ones mentioned on the page. Anything else is no longer a rule that needs to be followed.
Aaaaaah, I understand now. Admittedly I'm a holdout for the old, labyrinthine, "follow these or suffer the consequences" MOS rules, but I get the distinct impression that's a nonstarter of a position. But thanks for the clarification.
As I've said before, I come from the Wikipedia school of policy enforcement, wherein the policies and the penalties for violation exist for pretty much any situation. Thanks for the clarification, Bac; like Sakaros, I posted my query because of the Prince's legitimate grievance regarding title naming conventions.
Where exactly are the article naming conventions? They are nowhere to be found in the Article Guidelines or the Layout Guide. I could have sworn that convention dictated that article titles eschew ranks, epithets, nicknames, etc. Attempts to locate a Naming Conventions article result in redirection to the Article Guidelines.