FANDOM


  • but regarding some edits I want to make, I have a few questions:

    do you follow sentence case? with capitalisation, is it only proper names? How does linking work: do you link the pages every time they appear, or only once per article (for instance, this)?

    Because of the new season coming and my own boredom, I want to help. But I don't want to do anything that will be reverted, or that the wiki has decided is not what they want, y'know?

      Loading editor
    • With capitalization, all section headings are considered titles so they follow Title Capitalization rules.

      Proper nouns are capitalized, including Grounders, Earth, Sky People, Mountain Men, Mount Weather, Delinquents, etc.... Grounders and Delinquents can be capitalized depending on context of the sentence (used as a common noun vs. proper noun) and/or depending on editor (at this point, I have a tendency to always capitalize by default).

      To keep linking to a minimum yet also make it easy to find associated pages, I link the first time a page is mentioned in a specific section and usually re-link after a few paragraphs or after the start of a new section.

        Loading editor
    • Delinquents aren't proper nouns, though. It's a common now, like 'dog'. And doesn't the excess linking just make the whole page look messy? It does with the code, at least.

      Is there a way I can suggest changes, such as using sentence case in subheadings (because they're subheadings, not titles).

      (and im not just some random, I've been on wikia for a few years over on Avatar Wiki)

        Loading editor
    • And, no one has ever actually called them 'delinquents' in the show.

      one other thing: are the articles being written in an in-universe point of view, or are they written like 'and you can see in episode X that this thing happens'?

        Loading editor
    • "Delinquents" is used as a noun throughout the wikia in reference to "The 100" since in the beginning, it led to confusion between the show title and the group of delinquents sent down so it was decided before I even joined to use "Delinquents" when referring to the group as a whole. (And there never were 100 delinquents on the ground.)

      Second-level subheadings should always be capitalized (Early Life, Throughout the Series, etc...).

        Loading editor
    • Then why is it capitalised?

      And I disagree. It looks untidy and unencyclopaedic, imo. If you look at journal articles, like this and this, you'll see that the subheadings are not capitalised. It uses sentence case.

      What about that style? in-universe, or not?

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:

      one other thing: are the articles being written in an in-universe point of view, or are they written like 'and you can see in episode X that this thing happens'?

      Articles are written in third person, present tense. It's a little weird to tell people they can see something they're reading about it.... Episodes are usually referenced as so: "in XXX, XYZ happens."

        Loading editor
    • When I was here last time, I started creating a template so you can cite episodes without breaking up the text (because 'in X, this thing happens' is distracting when the alternative is 'this thing happens[1]').

      Is there a way I can make suggestions to the community?

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      When I was here last time, I started creating a template so you can cite episodes without breaking up the text (because 'in X, this thing happens' is distracting when the alternative is 'this thing happens[1]').

      I'm not sure what you mean?

      You can make them on the Suggestions board in the forum.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      Then why is it capitalised?

      And I disagree. It looks untidy and unencyclopaedic, imo. If you look at journal articles, like this and this, you'll see that the subheadings are not capitalised. It uses sentence case.

      What about that style? in-universe, or not?

      "Delinquents" is capitalized when it's used as a proper noun for the group of 100 delinquents who were sent down to earth just like Sky People is used as a proper noun for the Arkers and Mountain Men is used as a proper noun for the group of people who lived in Mount Weather.

      You can disagree with me about the subheadings but APA and MLA are clear: second-level subheadings are capitalized. Third-level and below are at the discretion of the editor (and which style they follow).

      I'm not sure what you mean by in-universe? You can read some of the articles to see the style they're written in.

        Loading editor
    • Here. It basically renders a reference list at the end of the page, which would look something like this. It looks much more encyclopaedic to have a list of references at the end.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      Here. It basically renders a reference list at the end of the page, which would look something like this. It looks much more encyclopaedic to have a list of references at the end.

      You might want to post that on the Suggestions board in the forum to see if others might like it. I'm personally not a fan because as an end user, I would get annoyed continually being sent to the bottom of the page to figure out the episode something happened in and then having to click or scroll back up to find my place again. Besides, reference sections are for external links, not for internal pages (that's what "See Also" is for).

        Loading editor
    • There is a code so you can hover over the [1] and it pops up with the details.

      And no. See also is for similar content, references is for things referenced.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      There is a code so you can hover over the [1] and it pops up with the details.

      And no. See also is for similar content, references is for things referenced.

      Either way, it's extra work for both the readers and the editors so my vote would still be no. Besides, the pop-up doesn't work consistently on mobile devices and that's what the majority of readers use nowadays when accessing the wikia.

        Loading editor
    • With the new season being released, it's likely that you'll get new users anyway. Either way, I'm happy to do the switch. It really isn't that difficult, and it lets me see the articles.

      So you're saying that extra work isn't worth making the articles read easier, and flow better?

        Loading editor
    • I'm saying that since the wikia is open for editing by anyone, a lot of people will not spend the time using templates, much less filling them out properly, meaning someone has to follow behind them and clean up. Statistically speaking, that person is probably going to end up being me and since I prefer it the way it is now, I probably won't bother fixing episode references if it's done "wrong."

      Just look at how often the regular References template is not used on this site; most people just stick the link in and I'm fine with that; at least people aren't intimidated from contributing by too much code.

        Loading editor
    • But using templates is less tedious in the long run for people anyway. And as I said, I'm happy to do it because I'm on holidays.

      If the community decides that yes, they want to do things a different way, will you follow that?

        Loading editor
    • Using templates only works if people actually use templates. Right now, no one uses templates except when first creating a page (and even then, half the time they still don't use a template) and I don't see that changing much.

      And I'm still not even sure what that template is supposed to be replacing? The episode names in the "Throughout the Series" sections or something else?

        Loading editor
    • So when the page is cleaned up, it's not really that much more difficult. The same thing happened all the time on the other wiki I was active on.

      That template replaces the out-of-universe and flow-breaking "In This Episode". If you want to see it in action, have a look at this page.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      So when the page is cleaned up, it's not really that much more difficult. The same thing happened all the time on the other wiki I was active on.

      Who is going to clean up and indefinitely maintain the pages?

      Fruipit wrote:
      That template replaces the out-of-universe and flow-breaking "In This Episode". If you want to see it in action, have a look at this page.

      Nope, I'm still not a fan. When I look up characters on wikias, I want to be able to glance through the episode titles to find the plot summary I'm looking for.  If I really wanted to know who wrote or directed the episode, I would click on the episode link (which I prefer to have easily accessible at the beginning of each episode summary). I prefer outline and summary vs. story-telling when I'm looking up information.

      Fruipit wrote:
      If the community decides that yes, they want to do things a different way, will you follow that?

      I volunteer here so I only edit what I want to edit. If I don't agree with policy (or it doesn't bother me, like capitalization or the references template), then I simply don't make those types of edits and leave it up to other people to make them if they want.

        Loading editor
    • Skyzy wrote: Who is going to clean up and indefinitely maintain the pages?

      Well, everyone on the wiki. You, if you want to be an admin. Me, because I'm suggesting the changes. Sparkstoaflame and TotallyTinkerbell, as editors, would maintain the pages. I'm more than happy to begin the clean up. As a matter of fact, for my own amusement and to show the other editors what my changes will look like, I've begun adjusting Abby's page to what the proposed changes would be. So you can see what it looks like.

      Skyzy wrote: Nope, I'm still not a fan. When I look up characters on wikias, I want to be able to glance through the episode titles to find the plot summary I'm looking for.  If I really wanted to know who wrote or directed the episode, I would click on the episode link (which I prefer to have easily accessible at the beginning of each episode summary). I prefer outline and summary vs. story-telling when I'm looking up information.

      It isn't story-telling, it's just a more in-depth and better-flowing way of writing it. We already use those types of references elsewhere on the wiki when using an outside source (see this section, for example).

      Skyzy wrote: I volunteer here so I only edit what I want to edit. If I don't agree with policy (or it doesn't bother me, like capitalization or the references template), then I simply don't make those types of edits and leave it up to other people to make them if they want.

      I thought as much. Okay.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      As a matter of fact, for my own amusement and to show the other editors what my changes will look like, I've begun adjusting Abby's page to what the proposed changes would be. So you can see what it looks like.

      Please don't! Really, please stop wasting my time. Go find another wikia to harass.

      I'm not even sure what your goal is here. You've only been on here for two days and every single edit you've made, I've had to reverse because you don't seem to know what you're doing nor do you even proofread the changes you've made.

      Fruipit wrote:
      Sparkstoaflame and TotallyTinkerbell, as editors, would maintain the pages.

      Sparkstoaflame joined only a couple of days ago and TotallyTinkerbell has other things she's doing besides maintaining pages. No one else besides you wants these changes and since statistically, I am the one who edits most of this wikia, I won't bother maintaining anything for you because the changes are ridiculous and impractical.

      You might want to visit Wikipedia to get an idea of what something "encyclopedic" looks like. We have a layout already established for a reason. You are just a random person who strolled in after a day and insulted everything on this wikia while proposing time-consuming and unprofessional changes that contribute nothing beneficial except to obfuscate information and require constant maintenance and vigilance.

        Loading editor
    • .... this is a real shame to see. fruipit, there is a system already in place. you should accept that or move on. skyzy was nice enough to even listen to what you had to say about it and decided it wasnt in the best interest of the wiki, and even said why. let it go mate.

        Loading editor
    • Just because there is a system in place, does not mean it's the most effective. You may think of me as swanning in, but I won't make any major changes without community support. The only person who has given any kind of reason for opposing has been Skyzy.

      There is a lot on this wiki that needs fixing, and I say that as someone who comes from one of the smoothest running wikis (it's been there for over a decade. they've had time to sort out the kinks). Not all the changes are 'ridiculous and impractical. For instance, removing it so that a page isn't linked to itself is not useless or impractical.

      ChancellorOfLights said: skyzy was nice enough to even listen to what you had to say about it and decided it wasnt in the best interest of the wiki...

      So does Slyzy make all your decisions for you, or...?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
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.