FANDOM

61,707 Pages
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Sebolto asked me to refer to you about this. But i have a few images on my computer from old deviantart users that no longer exist and there are no archived versions of their pages or images. In particular are a few planet images I thought of using. I figured i'd propose an update to the image policy regarding orphaned works but the track consensus was archived.

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • Well, there are two parts to this:

      1. For images which have secondhand sources online, I suppose I don't understand how that's distinct from a handful of other instances we've had in which images have been unsourceable, and we've allowed one-off exceptions that have sources to the effect of "Retrieved here; original source unavailable per this thread" with a link to the conversation with a member of the admin team which addressed the problem. In that case, the uploader found the image, and at the same time made a good faith effort to hunt down the original source but simply could not.
      2. For images which truly exist nowhere online (e.g. you download an image, then years later decide to use it after the artist has abandoned all online presence), although of course you're free to propose any modification to the Image Policy that you like, I would oppose such a change, because it seems like negligence on the uploader's part—taking an image without bothering to account for the intellectual property rights involved, as distinct from the research put into a secondhand source image. As the tutorial says, images are a privilege, not a right.
        Loading editor
    • to assume negligence on part of the uploader seems a bit rash, as taking into account all of the rights regarding hundreds of images they never thought would disappear from the net forever to most would seem pointless as most images downloaded from the net are often used for personal use or in roleplay forums i.e. fair use purposes. But its all a matter of perspective and opinion.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • This has been marked for deletion for some time. Could I pester you to take out the trash for me, please? ;)

      Loading editor
  • Hello, so I made my article for my character but its now pending for deletion. I'd appreciate if you'd tell me why when my page looks like the many that are already created and not pending deletion. Could you give me a reason please? 

      Loading editor
    Sakaros
    Sakaros closed this thread because:
    Addressed by Sebolto here.
    22:43, October 15, 2020
  • Hi Sakaros

    I created a page two days ago, but it says that it is pending deletion. What can I do to remove the pending deletion? Here is the link to the page https://swfanon.fandom.com/wiki/The_Coalition.

    Thanks

      Loading editor
  • Hey Sakaros, found a breaker of the no crossover policy here: Earth(Halo Universe Tie-in)

    And an article that isn't really up to standards, here: Dick

    Hope that helps! God bless! 

      Loading editor
    • Removed the first one, and Sebolto beat me to the punch on the second. Thanks!

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey! Just making you aware of this situation. After I sent that third message, this user account, which I assume is a sockpuppet of this account given their uploads of the same images & edits to the same pages, began making some strange page moves & page-blanking edits. Until such time as I have confirmation that the two accounts belong to the same individual, I'm going to revert I am darwen's edits to Commanderwolffememes's pages just to be safe.

      Loading editor
    • I concur with your assessment and will monitor the situation accordingly, but give me a heads-up if the issue persists and you need a quick-response block.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I'm very new to this platform, but wanted to make my first article on an original character I wrote. I wanted to add an image to my article, but since I'm not yet autoconfirmed, I am not allowed to. I really would like to get this image added, and was told by people on the fandom discord server to ask you if you could upload it for me. Thank you for your time, and I understand if this is not possible.

      Loading editor
    • I'm not sure who gave you that advice, but they led you astray—each user is responsible for his or her own image uploads. Autoconfirmation takes 96 hours (4 days), so it won't be long. In the interim, take some time to review the Image Policy and this tutorial; it gives some new users trouble, so it's best to get a good understanding of what's required before you start.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Thank you if you were the one who fixed my link. I was going to fix it later, but I got tired last night and all etc...if you weren't the one who fixed my link, let me know and I'll thank whoever it was :)

      Loading editor
    • Alas, I can't take credit for this one—that was Sebolto's handiwork. On any page, if you mouse over the down arrow next to the blue "EDIT" button and select "History", you can see everyone who's ever edited a page, and compare each revision to the others.

        Loading editor
    • Well...okay... but I'll just thank you for once again putting up with my non-computerness - LOL.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey! If Wikia's incessant banners weren't enough, this message is just a reminder that the wiki's migration to the UCP will likely take place this month. Apparently, communities aren't being given any advance notice of the migrations, so ours could conceivably happen any day at any time. As such, there are a few matters to discuss in preparation for this. Don't feel compelled to respond to all this—this is more of a resource thread for us & other relevant users who might benefit from this information.

    • The UCP's default source editor is a wonky variation of MediaWiki's 2017 wikitext editor, which is part of the VisualEditor extension. Apparently, source editor users on already-migrated UCP wikis weren't too fond of the 2017 editor's...eccentricities, so Wikia ported over the 2010 WikiEditor, the default source editor used on Wikipedia & other such places. Having experimented with both, I think you'll find the 2010 editor is closer to the source editor we know & love, though it's not enabled by default—if you want to enable it, you'll have to manually adjust your editor in your preferences once the wiki's been migrated. You can test the editors out on your userpage on the UCP test wiki if you want.
    • Apparently Special:Chat is not the only casualty to be lost to the migration process. Special:WikiActivity has also been removed from UCP wikis in favor of an expanded Special:RecentChanges. The new RC is pretty nice, I have to admit, but S:WA is a very useful patrol tool that I'm loath to lose. As such, we might want to consider installing this tool, a user-made recreation of WikiActivity's functionality specifically for UCP wikis. It's still in beta, & apparently riddled with bugs, but once a consistent build has been released, it might be worth porting here.
    • While UCP wikis retain usage & display of the Oasis skin (for now—a new skin is in the works, I believe), some CSS selector names have changed, as has some of the undergirding HTML structure. From what I've seen, this will result in some styling breakage, so you will likely have to deputize me as a temporary admin once we're migrated so I can patch the resultant mess.
    • With Chat's imminent demise, assuming we eventually get around to migrating to Discord, we might want to consider replacing the Chat rail module with this dedicated Discord module. I haven't set up a server or even bothered investigating the platform yet, so this is still a ways down the road, but I figured I'd let you know this module exists.
    • We discussed this in a previous thread, but as a reminder, Message Walls 2.0 are built on the same platform as Discussions threads—no wikitext, no easy linking, etc. Talk pages may be inelegant & messy in certain cases, but I still hold to the belief that they are significantly more flexible than the new MWs' Wikia cooked up for us. You can play around with them here if you like.

    I've been doing a lot of research in preparation for the migration, so if you have any questions, let me know. Cheers!

      Loading editor
    • View all 6 replies
    • I fail to see how the nature of "community" is at all affected by the location at which the interaction between community members occurs. Comments section, talk page—in either case, users have a dedicated space in which to exchange ideas & discuss the subject matter freely; the only thing that changes is the specific mechanism by which the conversation is mediated. Or are you tacitly implying that an on-page comments section is better suited to engendering discussion than a talk page?

      This all seems very inconsistent to me. If we're going to extend page creators the leeway to style & lay out their pages based on preference of presentation, we need to be consistent & extend that to all preference-based personalizations not directly forbidden by policy, lest we be seen as drawing the line at some subjective juncture. If the question of what a page creator can & can't do with the presentation & layout of his own page comes down to administrator fiat rather than clear precedent or point of policy, something's very wrong.

        Loading editor
    • I do personally think that comments serve better to create discussion than a talk page. That said, these all sound like arguments for that CT thread.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Bringing this to your attention—the user has recreated this page & its associated talk page several times now, creating an orphaned talk page the first time & recreating both the talk page & mainspace page the second time. Also, you might also want to check out his reply to Cushwex—not the most polite way one could go about pointing out another user's mistake.

      Loading editor
    • Similar to the last item of business in the above message, there's also this. These too I guess (this revision in particular killed me).

        Loading editor
    • Dropped a warning here. I deleted the articles too; I freely concede that Wookieepedia goes into greater detail, but I feel more confident in the persistent encyclopedic quality over there than here. Open to counterarguments, if you have any.

        Loading editor
    • Between these articles & some of his earlier work (like the Karen article), I get the impression the user is trolling & intentionally pushing the limits to see how far he can go. The comment about "you wouldn't dare censor an encyclopedic entry, would you? That would be immoral" definitely felt like trolling to me, but I could be wrong. Anyway, there is no legitimate use case for such articles here, & their mere presence invites vandalism or inappropriate editing, so I support the pages' removal.

      As an aside, I personally don't see why we even have general-purpose articles like Color or Sexes at all. Wookieepedia maintains such pages only to more easily collate all direct references to the subject matter in canon source material—in all other cases, "Wookieepedia is not a dictionary" doctrine applies, & links to the relevant Wikipedia articles are inserted instead. We have even less of a reason to have such pages, since the collation of references to subjects in fan fiction works is not something we do. No one really edits these pages, & since they basically just borrow or wholesale copy/paste text from the Wook versions, I personally would just softredirect them to their Wook equivalents whenever possible.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.