Hi! Would you be open to affiliate this & the Beyond wikis with the Shadowhunters TV wiki (Shadowhunters is a Freeform show as well). I can add the wordmark here and there if it would make it easier for you. Thanks in advance!
Also, if you're still active on the Guilt and Stitchers wikis, would you be okay with changing the affiliation from the book (shadowhunters) wiki to the TV (shadowhunterstv) wiki (there was a recent-ish separation), as well?
Yeah, and the show went on to take a life of its own and something I didn't feel could remain combined because they had a largely separate fanbase.
Thanks very much! I've uploaded the wordmarks and updated the link on the other wikis and added the wiki/wordmarks to the Affiliates templates here and on the Beyond wiki. Sorry I saw too late that most of the wordmarks' file names started with "AW-".
Hi Audrey, Quest here from the GHAW, now I hate to ask here and I'm not trying to advertise here, but could I ask are you still interested in an adminship at the GHAW, I've finally got round to answering your message over there and the spot is open for you there if you want it. Of course it's up to you as always, if you've changed your mind about t, that's allright, but if you are interested, plz do give me a holler over on my message wall there, thnx.
I checked out the polices for this wiki, and I was wondering if we could include gifs in relationship pages. In Riverdale Wiki , we use gifs in relationship articles, and they are actually useful. It kind of highlights important events. Here 's and example of a relationship page.
Also, I was wondering if I could edit the site policies page, just to organise and add more information.
Actually, I tested the pages, Jalexis and Raige, and they all look fine, I even went on mobile, and it's pretty stable. I just hope you reconsider since it would be nice to just have them in relationship articles. I usually pick good gifs that don't look too messy, so that it looks more presentable. Check out Jalexis and Raige as an example :)
I think GIFs are actually a pretty good idea. However, be careful - some of them are too long in seconds and those are something I call "digitally heavy", so they will take a long time to load or won't move at all for the duration in which you are on the page.
I suggest adding these to the Policies page:
1) When selecting or making a GIF, please keep in mind of the time stamp it hold or if they work properly. An appropriate GIF should have a timespan of no more than 3 seconds.
I do think that the gifs shouldn't be allowed in galleries, because it will just look messy. I think it should only be in the in the "Throughout the Series" section of an article and in the infobox images of articles such as relationship articles and event articles. The infoboox of character articles should still contain the promotional posters for the main cast, as well as clear profile for other cast members.
Lol honestly revisiting this many months later, I actually think we could test the idea of GIFs in the infobox for relationship articles. Being an active user of Riverdale I've seen how wonderful they look! :P <3 Also I've grown fonder of them since haha.
Yay! And yeah it has been way too long since we talked. I completely abandoned this wiki tbh. I've just been so busy with Riverdale, The Gifted, 13 Reasons Why Wiki, and a few new wikis, but I am planning on making an appearance here soon.
No worries! :P Selena, Jay, and I have also been busy with our share of wikis, including the wiki for the new CW show and reboot of the 1980 series, Dynasty Wiki which is what we're focused on right now! :)
Suggestion: Can we move the episode summaries to be their episode pages?
I think it'd be easier to keep it on the episode pages because then it completes an episode page instead of having to link it to another page. It's not that I don't like the way it is now, it's great actually!, but I have been thinking of making a new template for the plot section. The Hide/Show template. This template is pretty useful if you want to warn users, who've not seen an episode, to not read the summary. I've seen it in Vampire Diaries Wiki, Shadowhunters Wiki, Riverdale Wiki, etc. We could use this template in the episode summary section to hide the summary so that it's collapsible. Here is an example of it being used in an episode page. However, we can still keep the episode summary pages the way they are but also have the episode summaries on the episode pages by using a template that puts the content of the episode summary in the page but informs people that to edit it, you must visit for example, "Pilot/Episode Summary" to edit the content.
It sounds confusing so I have an example here. This is an example of what The 100 Wiki are doing with the gallery section of a character's article. The gallery itself can only be edited in the "PAGENAME"/Gallery page, but the content is also added to the characters page.
okay, I understand. I always forget that most of the templates aren't compatible with the mobile version. And btw I did mean that you could keep the episode summary page, where Jay would edit the content of the episode summary, but that it'd also be available on the episode page. Like Raven's gallery that I just showed you, to edit her gallery you have to go to Raven Reyes/Gallery, but the gallery page is added as part of her character article.
I just wanted to explain it, so that it'd be a lot clearer. A bit complicated, I know. However, I understand your reasons :)
We should rename Minor Characters to Episodic Characters since we have other minor characters who have their own pages. I feel it's important to make that distinction between Episodic characters and Minor characters because minor have a more noticeable role. And It'd make sense to have this page for episodic rather than minor since minor characters range from 2 to 4 episodes.
MasterMystery wrote: Out of curiosity, why is the staff doing an experiment on your 13RY wikia out of all wikis?
They just chose the wiki to experiment their new editor, Lucy. This new editor is part of the "Wiki modernization", as you've probably heard about now. Lucy still needs a lot of work, but they needed a community to test their wiki on. You can go over to the wikia and check it out the new design. Right now, it is not really flexible, and we have informed the staff over at Fandom Labs concerning bugs, suggestions, etc. I also wrote information in the community corner in the Wiki Activity that you can check out for extra information The staff who did it was Witnessme, who was active in out 13 reasons why wiki before the experiment. I guess she gave them the idea to pick us as the testing community. All the admins didn't know about the experiment until later.
Yeah, the header is the only thing similar. The editor, Lucy, itself is different. All other major wiki's like Marvel Database and Vampire Diaries have the new headers but the same editing modes, visual and source mode. The new editor has changed the formatting in the articles so that it looks like the mobile version. The only downside with Lucy is that it doesn't allow source editing mode. So it's more like a WYSIWYM editor.
I noticed. I was on my desktop when I read your initial reply to my post and went to the 13 Reasons why wikia, and saw that it was a on mobile. I thought my desktop was being funky, then I went onto here and say FIL was normal.
Same. I'm so not motivated to edit anymore. I was literally on a roll in on the other wiki, but I just gave up with this new editor. It is so limited that I feel like I can't add any new templates or format it differently. It sucks tbh.
I saw that you've reported some issues to the Wikia Staff to mostly no avail. Did you and the other 13RY admins tell the wikia staff that you aren't really comfortable with the experiment, list some of your problems relating to the wiki, and/or prefer to go back to your normal editor?
Yeah, we've pretty much been doing that. I have informed them, but they say that they need the feedback we are giving them. Although I haven't contacted them for a while now. I'll definitely speak with the other admins about getting our old wiki back and send a feedback to the Wikia Staff. They said they'd fix the problems in a week a while back, but that's passed and I don't see the changes. I think it's time we got our old editor back since they aren't doing anything and all the users are pretty much giving up.
Okay, this is what I wrote. Had to add more information to make it legit:
I am Tammzz, writing on behalf of 13 reasons why Wiki, as an admin. 13 Reasons Why Wiki chooses to no longer participate in the Fandom Labs experiment regarding the new editor, Lucy. This is because the Staff over at Fandom Labs have not really been taking our feedbacks or our complaints seriously. We have not had an update for a long time now, and this new editor is making it harder for us to develop our wiki. Everyone is complaining that they lack motivation in editing, and to be honest, the admins do too.
I am Tammzz, an administrator on the 13 Reasons Why Wikia, writing on behalf of the wiki's administration. 13 Reasons Why Wiki wishes to no longer participate in the Fandom Labs experiment regarding the new editor, Lucy. This is because the Staff over at Fandom Labs have not really been taking our feedbacks or our complaints seriously. We have not had an update for a long time now, as this new editor is making it harder for us to develop our wikia. Our users are complaining about the limited methods in editing, and to be honest, the admins do too. Our old editor was way more efficient, so we plead with you to let us revert back to our editor for the sake of our wikia's future.
Okay, so this George guy is obviously aware you're upset, but basically his message is "we intend the continue with the project until we realize it's a complete failure".
That said, I do recommend you make a list of problems you're having. Also include how deserted the wikia community is and how the experiment makes it hard for the wikia to continue on editing and building up your site, thus ruining the solid foundation of a large fandom the wikia should have.
"While we appreciate the changes and time you're putting into this project, we must decline to work with it any further and ask that our wiki is reverted back to it's original style. We apologize for the inconvenience".
The thing is that our wiki, 13RW, is the core of this experiment. Our wiki is the testing site. Most of the feedback for improvement comes from our reports. I feel that even though I may not be fond of their new design, they still clearly need the help. And I have a feeling this project will become even more bigger than it is now and if we leave, we may be left out of the loop. It did just launch in April. It's literally been a month since they started. I'm kinda conflicted rn. I love the model that all the wikias have now, but if this experiment is a success, they may change all the wikis to fit the new model. It is part of the "modernisation" after all. I feel I should help out, but maybe not by using our 13 reasons why wiki. There are other wikis out there who may be willing to help. Maybe they should just pick wikis with smaller databases and community overall.
The administration team has not been informed about the weekly changelogs. This project is pretty big, as you have stated. We do want to contribute to developing the model and we understand the concept of this experiment and how our help is deeply needed, however, we feel that we have not been briefed in a more thorough manner concerning the progression of the experiment. My concern is that this experiment is slowing down the development of our wiki. I have had complaints that the whole outlook and design of Lucy isn't as effective the one we currently have.We also prefer that the staff made a separate experiment wiki for 13 Reasons Why instead of using our main wiki for the testing.
We prefer source mode over Lucy. The reason being that with source mode, we actually get to format the wiki articles according to our own standards. This new design limits our chances of developing a more flexible format throughout the articles, and thus aids to the setback of the development of the wiki. If you could incorporate a source mode into Lucy, or turn Lucy into a source mode only editing mode, it'd be so much effective than what we have now.
List of problems/bugs that need to be checked out:
As a whole, I feel that the Getting Started guide, doesn't help out a lot. We feel it'd be better if you make a 5 minute video on how to edit using Lucy, so we can see the team using all the functions and widgets provided in Lucy so that we have a more thorough guide.
I still have no idea how to add episode references. We made the Ep ref template that allowed us to reference episodes in other articles, i.e, in character articles, when we write their biographies, but I still have no idea how the staff managed to add the episode references the exact way it was formatted when the staff moved all the content from the original to the new wiki.
This is what appears in the footnote, but when I'm editing, it appears like this: And when I try to copy the reference and past it on another area of the page, they just appear as normal text. I don't understand how to format the reference like that because it only allows one link where referencing, whilst the episode references have multiple links. If you could make the references include multiple links, that would be very useful.
With Lucy, we are unable to place interlanguage links. Please make that a possibility in the near future.
There are some pages that are pretty useless, images/ files that were imported have their own pages. Like this page, for instance. We don't understand the purpose of all these individual pages for images.
The reference popups do not seem to work at all. We added the reference popup codes in the Common.js, but they do not seem to be compatible with Lucy. This is an essential part of our wiki, because when we are using episode references, it becomes easier to hover over the references and see which episode the summary is from. Without this function, it ultimately defeats the point of using episode references.
The table is still unstable. The table has been improved, but there are still a few bugs, as you can see the main image column appears twice, thus making it look weird. Please do find out what is wrong, because we are struggling with the table widget. Another thing is that when I make the episodes table, it appears as a blank space. Then, when I save the edit, the table actually shows. This makes it harder to review the table while editing.
An issue that has been bugging us is the inability to add categories to articles. We find that categorisation helps with the organisation and maintenance of the articles around the wiki. Without the ability to categorise pages, it becomes more challenging to find pages that are not on the wiki navigation bar. We understand that the staff is using custom Page Types, however, we want the ability to manually add certain "page types", so we have more options when creating pages.
We are unable to see who edits what in the history. This is important to know, so as to know which users may possibly be vandalising pages.
The homepage first appears blank but then reloads many seconds later with the content.
We also want the ability to have redirect pages when people don't know the character's full name but know other names they're known by.
For future reference, we want to keep in a more closer contact with the team. After the team finishes updating a section, they can make us test it out. We don't just want to edit pages for the sake of it, but actually edit so we can give you guys feedback. We are testing the editor for you guys so that you may improve it, so please do give us something to work with to speed up the process.
Please do correct my grammar if you feel like it. I am too tired to continue editing it, I just want to send it. :P
I think this time they have listened to you and your demands. However, I still don't get why a new editor, regardless if it's being tested on your wiki, is needed, as most wikias I've been to run well and effective and the "modernization" they want could just be innovations added to existing editors.
Overall, from his response, he has tested and thought about your issues, and he will address it with his team.
However, his response to "Category" has confused and interested me. There are some wikis, like Pretty Little Liars, whose category systems are out-of-control and disorganized, but that's to be expected from very large and popular wikis. TBH, if I were in his shoes, I'll add the category bar usually on the bottom of the page to the top, so it makes it easier for people to indentify, add/remove, and correct categories and all that. Mind if you suggest that to him?
Yep, I will absolutely add the cateogry suggestion. I have told him that the classic editor is more effective and prefered, but he's keen on this new design that is better for newbies. However, if they plan on having just a visual editor, they'll need to add so many functions and provided tools that replace source mode completely, and that is a lot of work. In the Vampire Diaries, the categories are added at the top of the page and it actually looks better. Like Elena's page, for example.
It's understandable that you want to develope a prototype designed to fit all the tools and features provided so it becomes easier for newbies. I will definitely inform others of having two separate wikis and ask for their opinion on continuing to help out in the experiment if there will be a separate wiki for testing. Thank you for reviewing the problems, to which the team will fix in the near future. Regarding the table, the page is linked here. The home page appearing blank was a problem I received from an editor in the wiki, however, this has not been recently happening to me as it did before. I will inform everyone of the updates and posts in the discussions at Fandom Labs.
I received another suggestion concerning the categories. We think it'd be easier if the categories remained at the top of the page instead of the bottom, then it becomes more effective when identifying and editing them.
I would like to thank you, once again, for all your efforts in taking care of our problems. Your efforts are deeply appreciated.
I like it. You outlined your thoughts and was clear enough to get the message across.
But here's my edit:
It's understandable that you want to develop a prototype designed to fit all the tools and features provided so it becomes easier for newbies. I will definitely inform the others of having two separate wikis and ask for their opinion on continuing to help out in the experiment if a second wiki for testing is made.
Thank you for reviewing the problems that you plan on fixing in the near future. Regarding the table, the page is linked here. The home page appearing blank was a problem for one of the editors of the wiki. However, this has not been recently happening to me as it did before. I will inform everyone of the recent updates in these discussions.
Furthermore, I received another suggestion concerning the categories. We think it'd be easier if the categories remained at the top of the page instead of the bottom, so it can be more effective when identifying and editing them.
I would like to thank you, once again, for all your efforts in taking care of our problems.
After chatting with the technical team and giving them your thoughts to read, I have some more info I can provide around your concerns:
Updated behaviour for references (aka "footnotes") is expected to land pretty soon, and we're looking out for what kinds of advanced references exist out in the wild so that we can tweak the behaviour to suit.
Image pages exist from the way content was imported, in order to try to get galleries to work in a similar way to they were before the import. If a given image page doesn't exist in a gallery, it's safe to delete that page.
In tables, you can now customize which columns appear: in the editor, click the table, then click the gear icon in the top-right of the dialog. Additional table customization options are planned for the future. Plus, I'll talk to the team about why it's showing up as a blank space - albeit a selectable one - in the editor at the moment. That part's not expected, of course.
Additionally, we have a rough implementation plan for some upcoming features (though this can easily change based on feedback, coding challenges, etc.):
Per-community Page Types, probably within the next 1-3 weeks. This will also make it slightly easier to create things like episode tables, though we're also aware that there's even more work to be done on the table front beyond that.
Categories-as-navigation, probably right after Page Types.
Redirects-as-aliases and redirects-as-disambiguation, likely parts of it starting to appear around when Categories-as-navigation wraps up.
How does that sound?
I suspect the blank home page issue is a bug that's since been fixed - but if you come across new reports, please do let us know!
George Marbulcanti (Kirkburn) Senior Technical Community Support Specialist FANDOM Community Support Team
Thank you for discussing these problems with the team. The table seems more manageable, now that we can choose which columns can appear. Although, we would prefer to have a bit more flexibility, like making our own columns and adding our own content in the tables, but as you've said, that will probably appear after the Page Types.
I would like to know the difference between Page Types and Categories with this new model, because they do seem to work in a similar way with the fact that they're there for navigational purposes.
How can one add new images to a gallery? When one uploads images, do they all have their own pages or does that only concern content that was imported from the other wiki?
In addition, I have created a thread regarding the idea of having two wikis running in parallel. I will update you with information regarding people's thoughts on the matter.
Got this reply a while back, but I've just been busy lately. What would you guys answer?
That's a good question, and a bit of a hard one to answer right now since how they behave could change a great deal as development continues. However, "page types" are basically overall page layouts to help with article consistency, while categories would be ways of grouping pages (beyond the basic navigation grouping). Do you have any thoughts on how you would ideally like categories to work? Pretend that MediaWiki categories don't exist, of course.
That's a good question, and a bit of a hard Do you have any thoughts on how you would ideally like categories to work? Pretend that MediaWiki categories don't exist, of course.
Well, I have an idea on to keep the category system more organized and efficient. What if, when you create a page and give it a title, you can also input the categories right then and there.
If I were to make a page for anything, I'll know whom or what I'm creating it for and what kind of categories I want it to be in. For example, if I'm creating a page for "Hannah Baker", I'll add the title and then, below it, I can add the categories, like "Season 1 Character" and "Females".
Going back to when I suggested to adding categories to the top page, I suggest adding a feature that would "protect categories". Similar to how you protect pages against new and unregistered users or just for admins/bureaucrats, you can protect categories for that other users can't delete them and you can keep track on which pages to where.
Sorry for such a late reply. I have been very busy lately. Nevertheless, regarding the categories, I think the way they work now is alright. They do serve as a helpful way to group related articles together and are quick tell readers what the article is about. However, I do have one suggestion — Instead of having the Page Types and Categories separate, you could combine them to maximize the effect. Since Page Types focuses on the page layout, and the Categories focus on navigational purposes, they would fit perfectly together, because when you click the category, it automatically makes the page layout for you. I also think that admins should have the ability to tamper with the Page Types and add their own options because there are some pages that are not on the" Page Type" list.
A fellow user, MasterMystery, shared his ideas with me and I thought I might mention them. I thought they would help to keep the category system more organized and efficient. The idea is that when one creates a page with its title, they will also have the ability to input the categories. Then you won't only have the ability to choose the page type, but also the Category. For instance, If I were to make a page for a character, like "Hannah Baker", I'd add the title and then, below it, I'd add the categories, like "Character", "Season 1 Character" and "Females", then I'd add the Page Type, which would serve as the page's layout.
Another idea is adding a feature that protects categories. Similar to how you protect pages against new and unregistered users or just for admins/bureaucrats, it will make it easier to protect categories so that other users can't delete them, or add any unauthorised categories. Overall, it would help keep track of the categories in pages.
If you don't mind, I edited the navigation bar so that the characters was part of the TV Series along with the other categories. I added a fourth level so that it'd be easier to fit all the characters in the TV Series section. You can check it out. If you don't like it, then I'll revert it to the original. :)
I mean, to be honest, I feel like it's extra because I more or less cover who said what in the episode summaries, plus making transcripts require a lot of work and dedication that is otherwise unnecessary.....
I guess, but I'm willing to work on it. Transcripts are different to episode summaries with the format and everything. And it's not only focused on the dialogue but also includes other scene information such as props or actions.
I mean, I guess you can go right ahead. My concerns include that transcripts will add repetition and extra info that really isn't important on what happens with characters and other events otherwise basically explained in episode summaries and shown/illustrated on screencaps.
Okay, if you think it's not needed, then forget it. By the way, I also wanted to ask if we could not have a crew/actor's filmography because some are really long and unnecessary. They fill up the whole page and it doesn't look presentable. Instead, we can have external links, which is what I've been adding to cast pages.
Exactly, that's what I mean. At least something we agree on, lol. And in the biography part, I feel like all the information is copied straight from wikipedia. I searched up Katelyn Tarver's and all of it was from wikipedia. I thought you guys were strict about wikipedia information. And plus there was no reference for any of the content.
Because when it comes to actors info, especially filmography lists, Wikipedia and IMDd actually does have nice records. It's only show spoilers and plots events and all that jazz where Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
True, I agree. When you guys said not to retrieve info from Wikipedia and IMDb, I was confused cause they usually provide a lot of useful information. Also, when we do use information from Wikipedia, we should add the Wikipedia template, to give them credit.
As for the gallery section, I was thinking we could only add pictures from BTS of Famous in love, instead of random pictures off google.
Hi, I was thinking that we could change the name of the pairings into, for example, Jake and Paige instead because having their ship name seems a bit informal. And if we start doing that, then it will be messy to have pairings with ship names and others (such as rivals) without one.
I think it's fine by itself. My only complaint about the ship names is some of them sound terrible (Jangey? C'mon Twitter. Tandan or Tordan is better! :P). Raige and Jaige may sound similar but not too much to cause confusion :)
Okay, but I do think we should use the ship names in the infobox at the top instead. It's neater that way. They all look similar and it is confusing. And yes, I absolutely agree that some of them sound very weird and terrible.
Oh right. Well in most wikis I've been too, they reserve the ship names for the infoboxes and name them "Paige and Jake" instead, just to prevent confusion. But of course, since you guys have decided to keep it like this, then we might as well...
I don't really like wikis that do "Rainer and Paige". We should keep it as Raige, Jaige, etc. I like to think that this is a wiki for the fans, and for people who love the show. I don't want the wiki to turn out like the Teen Wolf Wiki which is 100% database and feels like you're being attacked every time you do anything FUN. They even disabled comments, chat, and most of forums. Therefore, I think it's okay to keep certain aspects unformal but more recognizable!
Teen Wolf is one of my favorite shows ever but the wiki for it really bugs me.
The moment you do anything social, the one and only power-hungry admin literally bites your head off... He is so strict about it being "database only" that it pisses me off.
I never agreed with the whole idea of making a second wiki if one already exists(like when Tyson did about 100 times with PLL), but honestly I prefer the "copycat" Teen Wolf Wikis (w:c:teen-wolf-pack) because they're not ridiculous.
Oh my God I know how you feel. The Scream Queens wikia is like that.
Instead of a friendly group open and kind to users, the wikia's gang of admins and bureaucrats are like the stereotypical high school populars. They're super fake, whiny and conpletely bitchy. They literally rely on other users to maintain their wiki and legit correct what they do. They are bullies and always make fun of other users. They ban anyone for no reason, or "just because".
One user, Idekmandy, comes to mind. She is the epitome of what I described above, and hired me to do her episode summaries. The task got to a point where it was a burdan, and I complained about it. She banned me on the spot.