 |
 Archives | ||
|---|---|---|
Removing Video Game/Deleted Material Articles
Hello fellow Wikians. After the proccess of the debate in which if the LEGO articles and pages should stay, I came upon the idea and notion that we should remove all non-canon character pages, but actually allow the game pages to remain.
For example, we would exclude Madame Hydra, but not the Captain America: Super Soldier page, or Ymir and Thor: God of Thunder (same with mobile games too). The idea of allowing these non-canon characters to remain with their own pages in the Wiki honestly makes no sense. While, yes, the games are based on the MCU timeline as tie-ins, which is why they deserve their own pages, their characters do not. Adding them is not only a waste of time as it is also a waste making categories for video games-only characters and adding non-canon characters along canon characters.
Also, I suddenly stumbled upon the Most Wanted page and saw that pages for characters like Dominic Fortune exist, despite, as the show never aired, this character basically does not even exist in the MCU. I know it is categorized under Cancelled media, but I don't see the point of having a character that virtually does not exist in the universe, so he, and other cancelled characters, should not have their own pages.
I wanted to see the other users' opinions about this, as well as the admins (although I know some want the game articles to stay).- User:Draft227 August 09th, 2016 19:39
- I knew that the Lego situation would open a dangerous gate... Regarding Most Wanted. It's an entirely new situation, as it is the first cancelled media of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, I shall remind you the purpose of a Wiki (not only of this wiki): To collect any and all information about a specific topic in the most comprehensive way. Marvel even released a character description for him, so I see no reason to delete that information from this wiki. Our goal is to collect and share information, not to restrain it. You said that it has a template to signal that it is cancelled media, so that's more than enough to clarify its status.--Shabook (talk) 22:57, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
- I have never been a fan of pages for non-canon characters. I prefer having their biography in the game pages, so that it is still shown for those who play the game, but not for people who search for a character hoping it is there.
About the most wanted situation: No reason to remove any of it.TomasDerksen (talk) 13:46, August 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that character pages for non-canon people are redundant. As said above, those characters technically do not even exist within MCU, although the products that featured them are tie-in materials. My opinion is the same method I suggested in the last weeks: The character pages should be removed and the character bios should be covered either in the main article of the non-canon product (video game, cancelled media, etc.) or in a sub-page like "Thor: God of Thunder/Characters". Shabook is right about the fact that wikis must collect any relevant information on their topics; however, I believe in the case of non-canon (or cancelled) products, only the product itself deserves its own page; its characters do not. Silacko (talk) 17:03, August 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize if this may sound rude or blunt, not my intention, but the removal of pages about the characters, actors or any other concept that may have appeared in Most Wanted or any other project similarly cancelled before release is, simply put, not up for discussion.
As for videogames, well, they are not my cup of tea, so I don't mind a rework of the pages.--Shabook (talk) 17:44, August 11, 2016 (UTC)- No apologies needed. I'm not very insistent on removing the character pages of the cancelled media. I just wanted to state my opinion on this. Silacko (talk) 17:57, August 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize if this may sound rude or blunt, not my intention, but the removal of pages about the characters, actors or any other concept that may have appeared in Most Wanted or any other project similarly cancelled before release is, simply put, not up for discussion.
- I agree with Silacko's idea, and you do not sound rude. I just found it strange why MW actors still have their pages while people like Patrick Wilson who would play someone in Ant-Man had his page removed. Isn't the case similar here?
Also, sorry for thinking the deletion of the articles was up for discussion, but since you brought the games, should we talk more about it? So far, from the four people involved in this discussion, all dislike the idea of keeping non-canon characters, and I know many more do from other pages. Draft227
- I agree with Silacko's idea, and you do not sound rude. I just found it strange why MW actors still have their pages while people like Patrick Wilson who would play someone in Ant-Man had his page removed. Isn't the case similar here?
- This place is uncharacteristically non-hyperverbal. Last time we were discussing the Lego pages, a notification was sent by one of the admins. Maybe that would help.
- Anyways, I dropped by to propose also the removal of the "Video games only" sub-sections in the relationship sections of the characters. Silacko (talk) 05:50, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
Staff Members
Following the Staff Survey that we conducted in July, polls reveal that a majority of voters believe this wiki could benefit from newer Staff members. As such, we will begin a process to choose new Content Moderators. In case you need to, you can consult the whole Staff Survey here and some of its conclusions here.
Since the last election in this wiki, Wikia has released new groups of User rights, including Content Moderators, whose tools and functions can be consulted at the Help:User rights. The tools they have would allow new Content Moderators to protect and edit pages that had needed to be protected, rename images, delete or undelete articles and files, rollback undesired edits and patrol new pages. As such, an ideal content moderator should be an user whose edits are trustworthy, and, especially, that knows, follows and respects this wiki's policies and standards.
Following the release of these ranks, that are an intermediate step between a regular user and a full-fledged administrator, Wikia encourages promotion of users to these medium ranks before a promotion to administrators. So, in the proper section below, editors will be able to nominate the users they think are worthy of becoming new content moderators.
On the other hand, during the staff survey there were also comments, some in first person, about the possibility of demotions of some of the current staff members. In the proper section below, you will also be able to comment about this possibility.
Don't forget to sign your comments, and thank you to everyone for your participation!--Shabook (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2016 (UTC)
Content Moderators Nominations
In this section, editors will be able to nominate up to TWO users to become Content Moderators. As usual, both Nominators and Nominees will need to be members of this Community before the announcement of this whole process. Also, you cannot nominate yourself.
Keep in mind that this process is very serious, not just a popularity contest, so, together with your nomination, you have to give a few reasons why you think the nominated users deserves the new rank.--Shabook (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2016 (UTC)
Hello users and staff members. I would like to nominate User:Dr.Who1997 to become a content moderator. This user has stuck around this wiki for quite a while now, and has an unshakable passion for the content of this site. He is a diligent worker and is willing put himself forth to help out whenever possible. Thank you for your time. ~Silverstream (talk) 04:38, August 24, 2016 (UTC)Silverstream
Staff Demotions
In this section, editors will be able to comment on the possibility of the demotion of some of the current Staff Members. If you wish, you can consult the original comments at the Staff Survey here.
Given the delicate nature of this topic we ask you to give your reasons in a respectful manner. Comments lacking an actual reason will be deleted without further notice.--Shabook (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2016 (UTC)