Avatar Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Avatar Wiki
Forums: War Room Fanon categorisation guide
Note: This thread has been unedited for 1372 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Categorization guide and a to-do-list created.
Please do not edit this discussion.


My final product of my time as fanon administrator, the Fanon categorization guide has been completed. There are undoubtedly points that I may be missing, and probably a few errors, so if you could read over the guide and then suggest changes or identify errors, I would be very grateful. And look out for any typos, I used my iPad to write the majority of the policy, so there might be a few of those. Once the community feels that it is fully completed, it will be moved to Project:Fanon categorization guide, and become a reference to any changes that the Fanon Admins need to make. Cheers, Rassilon of Old (Wall - Help) 22:41, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks good for the most part. There are a few things that need changing in the way its worded. I would also mention genres at some point. Another concern is the format of the example given. This is not to say anything against Eyes of Katara, as its one of the best-written fanons on the wiki. It's just that the format is inconsistent between the different category types and it may be confusing to new users. For instance, the main category is "FANON NAME (fanon)". The sub-categories for characters, templates and images follow a similar format and are named "FANON NAME characters (fanon)", "FANON NAME templates (fanon)" and "FANON NAME images (fanon)". This is easy to follow. However, the locations and events sub-categories deviate from this format and are entitled with "Locations (FANON NAME)" and "Events (FANON NAME)", which is an entirely different way to phrase it. I'm not by any means saying that Vulmen has to rename his categories - that's up to the author. I just think we should be consistent on official policy pages and make things simpler for newcomers who read it by following one format in our examples. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 23:00, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
I'd support that change, the only reason I had that in there was to show that the category names can vary. I'd like to point out that some of those categories don't exist, and are only used as an example. Rassilon of Old (Wall - Help) 23:03, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I made that change. In addition, I think there should be a list of other categories, like benders, royalty, battles, etc. That may be long, so that could go on a separate page if need be. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 13:55, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to make a list of all possible categories out there and also make it more clear which categories should be on which page. That would make it easier for everyone to maintain the portal as now users often edit a newly released fanon related page to sort it and/or add the correct (or more correct) categories. There are often "incest" categories on pages because I believe many fanon authors simply don't know which category belongs were. It could be something like my answer to Madam Subclause here.
Maybe you could also make the category description compulsory instead of just advising it, because that way people can learn easily which category serves which purpose by looking at any category on any fanon instead of hopefully being lucky that the category they clicked has a description. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 14:07, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so let’s get a list together of what needs to be added so that this page can be moved to its new location. So far it instructs how to make and name your own fanon categories for each of compulsory and non-compulsory examples. We should also note that the main page of a series gets the story pages category added and this page gets the genre categories if they apply. The main page is also the only place where genre categories go and not on chapters or anything else. Everything, of course, gets the A to Z and gets sorted. Maybe we should quote that on the categorization guide. {{DEFAULTSORT:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} That has most of the main stuff covered, except for bending and some other categories that aren’t used as often. Articles (fanon) covers everything from the top down.

Of course, character pages have lots of other categories that get added to them. We don’t need to explain them all in the categorization guide, but it would probably be helpful to list them for reference. We have the four nations categories for Air, Earth, Fire and Water. There are also the bending categories, which include Avatars, Airbenders, Earthbenders, Firebenders, Waterbenders and Energybenders, along with some other bending pages that only exist in certain fanons. The other categories which apply to characters include: animals, assassins, bounty hunters, civilians, criminals, Dai Li, Freedom Fighters, Kyoshi Warriors, monks, rebels, royalty, soldiers and spirits.

I also think the categorizing a category section should be expanded upon. Although it sounds simple enough for an experienced user’s viewpoint, I’m not sure it comes off that way to new users. And we should mention the categories like Stories (fanon) and Characters (fanon), which only have categories under them and not pages.

On a final note, every category in the fanon portal has “(fanon)” at the end of it, no matter what it is, except for story pages. Well…(takes breath)…that’s all I can think of at the moment. Did I miss anything or are we good?

@Lady: I’m not sure what making the description compulsory would do. If the categorization guide is comprehensive enough, people will catch on. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 16:34, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think you quite covered it all :-) The main thing is to explain clearly which category goes on which page.
I would make the description compulsory because it is really easy to do so and it provides an easy example. We can make a nice policy all we want, but users often act first before reading the policy (often after explicitly been directed to it by someone else). The small explanation on each category can show everyone why that particular category is applied to that page without having to read the policy. I'm not saying that this is the right way, providing some sort of back door for people to learn the category system without reading the policy, but it's just a fact that people often don't read the policies, so I'm just suggesting that out of practical uses. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 16:47, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course users often don't read the policy. If that wasn't the case here then fanon admins would have a lot less to do. Nevertheless, its still good to set the record straight. Maybe making them write the description on their categories would help them learn it somewhat, I just don't think it should be the number one priority. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 17:05, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, ofcourse not, it's not priority :-) I just saw "It is advised, but not compulsory" and I though that it might as well say "compulsory now that we're on the subject anyway. That was just a minor detail to be changed, nothing big. Sorry for the confusion about that :-) Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 19:58, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess I don't have much of a problem changing it to say compulsory in that case. However, as a fanon admin, that would be one of the last things that I check for in a fanon once everything else is ideal. It would be nice to have descriptions everywhere, yes. But I think it's obvious what a user category means without saying "this category lists all the pages authored by said user" or something like that. Of course, saying "it is compulsory" to do something comes off as a strong statement and I'm not sure this warrants a strong statement. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:09, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

True, I don't check for it either (sometimes when the category is just created, I can check it, but I don't go looking for those stuff). I just suggested it for those who do read the policy first before creating the category, as it would be nice to have those explanations there I think. But you're right that is comes over as a strong statement. What about, instead of saying "It's compulsory", say "It's advised" and leave out any talk about being compulsory? But really, this is a very minor detail, the other stuff listed is way more important. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 20:12, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "It's advised" sounds good. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:19, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, this has nothing to do with the categorization guide, not really anyway, but since the Fanonbenders are going active again, and you have that "fanonhelp" template, maybe you could list somewhere that users can add that template to their fanon page(s) if they want help with it, to make sure it gets a spelling/grammar/format/whatever check from others. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 21:03, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea, too. But the category needs to be recreated first. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:11, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I added in the material we brought up and changed the "advised, but not compulsory" to "advised." I also made a longer list of categories not covered in my sandbox. It's kind of long, so maybe it should be a separate page. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 16:12, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm allowed to edit that policy page seeing that I'm no FA, but I would add something like this somewhere to make it perfectly clear what goes where:

Adding categories
There are several fanon pages to create that each have their own categorization system; the category Category:A to Z (fanon)|[Page title] should however be added to every page as it serves as a universal category that is applied to all fanon-related pages.

Main page
The main page of your fanon, where you explain in short what your fanon is about, should have the following categories;

  • Category:A to Z (fanon)|[Your fanon title]
  • Category:Story pages
  • Category:[Your username] (fanon)
  • Category:[Your fanon title] (fanon)

Chapter page
When your story continues, you'll have plenty of chapters published. To make them easily accessible to all and create a nice overview of your work, the following chapters should be added to a chapter page;

  • Category:A to Z (fanon)|[Your chapter title]
  • Category:[Your username] (fanon)
  • Category:[Your fanon title] chapters (fanon)
This can also be expanded to the category tree, by inserting a small example of user category has that categories, fanon category has those and so on and so on. This might seem saying too much, but I've noticed that most of the FAs cleanup duties seem to be cleaning up misnamed categories, adding forgotten categories and removing "incest" categories. By making a list like above, users will know very clear what goes where. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 18:53, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe this new format can be integrated with the existing page somehow. *looks* --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 18:03, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

We also need a character categorization list, though that should be easier to make. As for the chapters, I don't think that the username category is needed, as in most categorization systems, the tree seems to stem from the user category: "Username (fanon)" --> "Fanon name (fanon)" --> "Fanon name chapters (fanon)". We should only require that all articles that belong to users should be in some way accessible from their main user category. --I'm The Bos - Talk 18:32, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
By including the user name category on all the pages, we provide an easy access to all the work of the particular author, making it very easy to see for readers what else that person has written, so I think that it is good that the category is added to all the pages. It's sort of like the characters category on all the characters pages: It provides an easy link back to the top of the tree without having to click twice or thrice. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 18:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
If we are trying to limit incestual categories, isn't this the most prime example? We should be trying to keep the reader able to read articles closer to the subject of the article they have already read. If I wanted to find more chapters of a fanon, I would be able to access that through the chapter category, making the user category practically useless if applied to all pages. --I'm The Bos - Talk 18:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
How would that make the user category useless as that category is for listing all the fanon articles that user has written? The category system will still be the same, the subcategories will still be at the top of the page, and the easy access to closely related subjects to the chapter the reader just read wouldn't be compromised at all. The only difference would be that you wouldn't have to make an unnecessary detour to other categories before coming to the top of the tree to see all the things the user has written. Once there, you'll have the choice to go down the tree using the subcategories or choose something random from the list under the subcategories. Adding that category to every page would make all the work of the author much more accessible. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 18:49, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

That would make the user category littered with character pages, chapter pages, series pages, articles that the user has been a part of, guest chapters, all appear in one list, disregarding the organization system the top of the tree should have. --I'm The Bos - Talk 19:05, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

They would be listed on one page indeed, but the subcategory system will still stand out like it is now, that part will no change one bit. It would list all the pages, so the reader can easily peruse through them, reading whatever they feel like atm from their favorite author, without affecting the tree. It would just be an easier way to see all the pages, provide more advertisement and easy access to that users work, that all. The only "downside", if you wish to call it that, although I don't see it that way, would be that it would be one long list list the characters category on main, but frankly, after being explained why that was, I don't see that as a downside. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 19:22, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I think both the having the username on all pages and not having the username on all pages categorization systems are fine, as long as they are tidy and consistent. I don't wish to ban one system in favor of the other. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 19:39, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I've nothing wrong with the addition of categories and the rename of the ones I have. But as for the "User (fanon)" I by no means want it slammed across every fanon article created. At least - not so long as it is included via a logical structure. Wasn't that a big argument about category incest? Why then enforce category incest? That's a double standard.
Look at Category:Vulmen (fanon) - if it weren't for the three guest chapters they wouldn't show up there. I'd rather categorize them under something like "Vulmen guest chapters" or some such thing but I just haven't put the thought into it. What I like about this, is that my User (fanon) cleanly lists the important fanon pages to show what "this user" is writing, rather than an ugly, massive list of every randomly named page by that user so anyone looking at the category cannot make sense of it.
Also note that I have two fanons listed, so the subcategories very cleanly keep track of - and separates - both fanon and all articles that relate to either one without confusion. Enforcing User (fanon) to simply make a mish-mosh of all pages will render "Users (fanon)" obsolete, an ugly mess, and useless to anyone seeking to find a structured layout. Vulmen (talkEoK) 21:14, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely with Vulmen. The User (fanon) category should be a listing of categories that user has created, not a list of articles the user has created. ARG said "I think both the having the username on all pages and not having the username on all pages categorization systems are fine, as long as they are tidy and consistent." well guess what, it won't be tidy, because it's just a mess of articles. Rassilon of Old (Wall - Help) 21:26, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I know it may seem odd to be supporting the removal of incest categories but make user categories an exception. Still, some users might want a list of every article they have created. If the sub-categories are up top and those are organized top-down in tree format, than organization is still achieved that way.
As for Vulmen's example of guest chapters, that's only relevant to some authors. Many users have never written a guest chapter or a one-shot. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:33, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
So; you realize supporting a conflict of interest is here, but that's A OK in this case? If a user wants their user page to hold such a massive list of un-readable every-page-ever-created layout, then they are free to exercise their non-compulsory free-will and apply their User (fanon) to every page themselves. Same goal, but non-compulsory/not required. If they want to make a mess of their categories it's their choice, not mine. Vulmen (talkEoK) 21:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
Well, it also allows a reader to click on the user category to go to the top of the author's category tree from any page they create, where they can see the story categories and the other pages they have created. The sub-category section is a well-organized set of category trees, while there is an exhaustive list of what the author has done in the lower part. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:43, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to counter here as this information was already stated. This is basically saying yes it's a double standard but carry on.
'Exhaustive list' is just that, exhaustive. You would also have to click "next next next" to see the full list, rather than it all in one shot. And there's no order to it, except alphabetical. Go look at "ABCLAF" chapters and see how well that turns out. There's absolutely no navigation capability to it. Wasn't the point of this forum to try to bring order and clarity to the fanon side? Why then enforce ugliness? That is what should be optional - note, optional, not denied. Vulmen (talkEoK) 21:47, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I want it to be optional to the author. I don't want to enforce category incest. I think the way you organize your categories is fine. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:49, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. It shouldn't be optional. We should be consistent in our organization of categories and stick to the tree format. Vulmen, Rass and Bos are right. To make things right, we should also remove the user category from the property template. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:56, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think the common consensus is to make all articles fall under the user category in some manner, organized by the user, and to create a set of Pirates of the Caribean style "guidelines" for newer users. If you look at Category: The Bos (fanon), I have my story pages, original character pages, and guest chapters on that page and all my others in sub categories. That is what works for me and I don't want to change it. Vulmen's system is good as well and it works for him. We shouldn't penalize the experienced users in order to organize the lesser ones, so we should only require a certain amount of categorization and leave the rest up to the user. --I'm The Bos - Talk 22:30, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we don't reorganize all the user categories, we should still use the consistent category tree with the user category at the top as an example in our guidelines. And we should remove the user cat from the property template, since a lot of new users will be using it. The property template and the categorization guide should be in harmony with one another. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 22:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of this forum was to made a harmonized categorization guide, so the fanon portal may finally get a bit more organized and consistent, both with categories as with the property template usage (but let's leave the templates out of this one for now). What is the point of harmonizing if we're not going to be consistent in applying it to every page? Cause now we have Vulmen's system, Bos's system, and a system where everything is organized under the user category. If we're going to let users apply every system like they see fit, then there is really no point in making this category guide. If we allow all it will be impossible for the FAs and other users to keep the fanon portal clean as it will be a constant adding and removing of categories because no one will know in the end what is the right system, and having a lot of different systems isn't exactly providing clarity for readers and new fanon authors. This isn't about "penalize the experienced users in order to organize the lesser ones", not at all, it is about providing a clear harmonized system to be used by all so the fanon portal will be clearer and appear more as a whole. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:31, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to make this discussion even more complicated, but regarding the genre categories, is it really the best option to put them on the story page? Maybe it should go on the story category instead. Obviously, one-shots would be an exception. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 17:23, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
I think that by putting the categories on the page, a user looking for a romantic story, for example, would be directed to the page of the series. This would allow the user looking for a new fanon to read to get background information on the series rather than the series' subcategories. --I'm The Bos - Talk 18:02, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
Anyone care to address Lady's question? She believed this forum should resolve forcing every fanon to one layout.
I think that when a fanon is just starting out; or does not have a clear structure, a standard fanon layout should be applied. Enforced can be an interchangeable word. :p Very likely if the user is learning the ropes this will aid them in learning how to structure their fanon and they may find the layout others aided them to create to be the one they use. This would likely be the case most of the time.
However I'm not sure that this should be enforced upon them no matter what. If the user, after gaining understanding of how the layout worked, decided that they wanted to have their fanon structured a little differently - I don't see why they should be denied that. The key point being that they have a clean and easy to understand structure.
A summary of what I am saying is that there should be a 'default' layout to guide authors along, but they are not confined to it once they get the hang of it. We have a vast number of different fanons - some with only chapter pages, some with character, group, location, game, etc pages - some with dual-part chapters...each fanon is different. If the author is aware of and logically organizing their fanon; I don't see why we should police them and frustrate their efforts. Vulmen (talkEoK) 00:21, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Sure every fanon is different, that is a given of course, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a basic harmony between all the fanon pages, and that is what I would like to see become reality on the fanon portal. A basic structure that everyone applies so it is easier for newcomers to learn and for readers to peruse through the fanon portal as a whole. As user get to know how the layout works then they can build further on the basic structure, but I'm still a firm defender of creating and then always keeping that basic, harmonized structure for the whole fanon portal. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:37, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Ah; you said basically the same thing I did. :) Yes; I think there could be a standard layout. However, if that is the case, what then constitutes these subtle variations - if you think the structure is allowed to change a little? That's my point of what I was trying to say - if the author decides they want their fanon arranged a little differently, but still keeping a clean layout, I don't see the problem. If they just start removing categories and adding random ones that don't make sense, by all means it's ridiculous and needs order. However; I haven't seen this be the case anywhere. Can't imagine it starting now. Vulmen (talkEoK) 00:42, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for clean layouts, but I'm more for clean standardized layouts, as in everyone has the same basic layout that they cannot change in order to have a harmonized fanon portal. They can then build on it by having extra subcategories or something in their category trees, but there should be a basic tree and a basic layout that is the same for everyone. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:47, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
And yet again we're of the same mind. Except; I would add this - if the basic layout is to be applied everywhere; it should be just that, barebones. The bare minimum of requirements should be included. After all; the suggestion here is that the basic layout cannot have the categories removed, but added. Then; leave room for some possible additions that leave it up to an author's personal preference to make. If following the guide that was posted earlier; the "Username (fanon)" should be removed from the chapter pages, and etc subsequent pages, but still be applied to the fanon main page. That makes the most logical ordering layout. If a user then wishes to add their Username (fanon) category to every single other page they desire; there's nothing to say they can't. Vulmen (talkEoK) 00:55, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the barebones requirements should be something like as followed.

  • All pages must be somehow within the user (fanon) category.
  • All chapter pages must be in the series chapter category, which should be within the fanon main category and the 'Chapters (fanon)' category.
  • All characters must be somehow included in 'Characters (fanon)'.
  • All story pages must be in the series category and 'Story pages' along with appropriate genre categories.

The overall structure should by similar, but this does allow for some leeway. Thoughts? --I'm The Bos - Talk 01:48, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

By the 'somehow included,' it being inherited via a subcategory is what you are suggesting, yes? That is indeed the overall structure suggested. However it doesn't quite clarify what the 'basic layout' to be applied on default should be, since the basic layout will be applied the moment a fanon goes live. Lady put up an example of a basic layout; which I think fits the criteria suggested, except I would say finish it. It should extend to show what categories should be applied to the 'Name of Fanon (fanon)' category (eg, Users (fanon)), so that the default structure would include the Users (fanon) category.
Jeez. That's a mouthful to say. -_-" I think you get it though. Basically; a default layout is being developed here such as per the guide Lady drafted, but alter it to line up with the criteria Bos suggested. I think that would be the cleanest and most ordered approach. Vulmen (talkEoK) 01:54, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Just popping in to say that I agree with Lostris. Let's get this fanon portal cleaned up. And I do strongly believe that "user (fanon)" categories should be included on every fanon page a user authors, even though that probably will not become a policy. Cutting out that navigational option for readers to go to a user's top-level category is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, as I've made clear on similar discussions about the categorisation system for canon articles... but if you choose not to, that's no skin off my teeth.
By the way, can we stop referring to categorisation practices that are supposedly superfluous or duplicated in function as "incest" categories? Seriously. The 888th Avatar (talk) 09:24, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
You've missed the point. Bos' suggestion above shows that "Users (fanon)" is required, but that it must be included in some method/form, e.g. by inheritance. A user can then go to the top level - Users (fanon) - and browse down to the specific section they desire. If a user wishes to clump everything in an unreadable way into that single Users (fanon) category, there's nothing to say they can't, but it's not the default suggestion as there is no real browsing capability to it. Vulmen (talkEoK) 00:23, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Not really (888th missing the point that is): There is no problem with starting at the top and browsing down, but there is a "problem" getting back to the top with one simple click if the users category isn't included on every page.
Sorry 888th, let's call it "parent category", that sounds nicer :-) Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:31, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Vulmen: No, I didn't miss it. I'm aware of what Bos is suggesting: that simply having "Users (fanon)" as a top-level category, and categorising pages under sub-categories of that top-level category is enough. I'm reiterating my opposition to exclusively using that method of categorisation. A far more intuitive navigational experience is offered by categorising pages both under sub-categories and the top-level category. It offers that link on individual pages to the top of the structure. That's important because users looking to browse, not merely find similar pages, will always want to start at the top, and then click through to sub-categories. It's the same reason as why websites incorporate links to the home page. Categories are a powerful means of allowing users to browse through topics on wikis, and we don't honour that by simply using it as a method of organisation. The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:34, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Lostris: Breathing a sigh of relief over here. :P The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:38, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Having every page linked twice is not the most intuitive route, it is the most cluttered and unorganized slop of pages possible. Look at Category:A_Bird_Could_Love_a_Fish_Chapters_(fanon) and imagine that plus every other page that say, I have created. Character pages, chapter pages, location pages, group pages, one shots, main fanon pages... there is nothing readable about that to understand what comes where.
The navigational argument is the only valid part to this. And for that; I go back to suggesting to remove the addition of Users (fanon) from the property template, but letting it continue to offer a "click-me" link to the Users (fanon) category. Problem solved, the link is still available for everyone to click. Vulmen (talkEoK) 00:40, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Edit conflict with Vulmen.
888: Sorry, but I'm afraid you did miss it. Bos suggested using a set of guidelines which state that users must have all pages connected to the user category either directly or through a parent category. He actually has all his pages categorized directly under the user category in his fanons and he was saying that should still be an option. Vulmen has the user category only at the top of the tree and everything under it is just for organization. I'm using Bos's system at the moment in my articles, but I'd be willing to change to Vulmen's system. We seem to have a trade-off between organization and navigation. Organization is the ideal of the "Vulmen system" and navigation is the ideal of the "Bos system." I think both are important, but we need to decide what's practical for us. Navigation is somewhat hindered by adopting the Vulmen system, but only to the extent of when people go looking for more articles by the author, when I think it is more common that people would look for more chapters or pages of the fanon which would be in a similar spot in the category tree.
A possible way to get the best of both worlds is to apply the property template across all pages, but without the automatic addition of the user cat. The user cat would be linked to: "see more from this author," but it would not put the page in the user category. This seems like a good solution to me.
Sorry about the "incest" thing. The term just kinda caught on. I'm fine with using "parent category" from now on. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 00:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Well, looks like Vulmen came to the same conclusion. I just went back and read his part :P --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 00:50, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Vulmen: The idea isn't for users to try to find these pages from the top-level category, the idea is having that link among the other category links (and not simply elsewhere on the page, that's not intuitive for readers looking at the categories at the bottom as a browsing option) as an option for navigation. Similar to how our canon character category is organised, there is no expectation that users will actually trawl through the top-level category. Sub-categories appear above individual pages on all categories, and the logic is that users will look through the sub-categories. The only "negative" would be if a user has a couple of pages that are only categorised under their top-level category, but I don't believe that that would ever be the case.
ARG: No, I still didn't miss it. :) I do agree with Bos' system of categorisation. I'm aware that categorising everything under the top-level category would still be an option under Bos' proposed guidelines; what I am saying is that it should not simply be an option, but should be compulsory. Then, I acknowledged that that is unlikely to happen. Since it is unlikely to happen, I'm more in favour of including the top-level category by default, and having an if function in the template so that there is the option of not having the top-level category. The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:54, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict: I think we all came to the same solution as I wanted to suggest the exact same thing as ARG and Vulmen: Remove the user category as an automatic addition, but make the templates mandatory on all the pages so that people could still link to the top of the tree. The "propertyother" template should be adapted then in order to have that link as now it just links to the author's user page. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:55, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Having the category "Users (fanon)" applied to every page is not the same setup as canon 888. Sure it may seem the same; but look at it from this perspective: Why don't we add "Articles" category to every page - so that the "Category:Articles" category is top-level and every page has it? That is the proper comparison here. (or even Category:Avatar Wiki for that matter) Vulmen (talkEoK) 00:57, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
I use the character category as a comparison because they both have an important similarity: the pages included under them run under a common theme or topic. From a reader's point of view, I would want to have a look at everything a writer has written on the wiki, and I would want that to be an intuitive navigational option at the bottom of the page. On the other hand, the examples you raise are far more disparate and have very little commonality. The index category incorporates different namespaces and different kinds of content. The likelihood of a user wanting to look at that after reading an article is too small for its inclusion to be intuitive.
I stand by my proposal: keep the current template's automatic integration of the top-level category, but incorporate a function so that there is the option of not having it. The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:05, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
I would actually suggest the template be switched so that the optional part is adding the category. Why? Because then, as the fanon default wouldn't incorporate that, there may be far more instances of the template /not/ adding the category.
And that is why we have individual categories for the related aspects. The characters category is repeated with characters (fanon). Plus; you cannot call that the same as a navigational perk. In canon, the characters category applies specifically to characters. Arranging that alphabetically as it does is a very logical, easy to understand approach. Every page beneath that category intuitively applies to just that; a character. There is no confusion there as to what they are looking at.
Do the same approach with Users (fanon). It would apply to a whole host of varied pages, which is exactly why I listed the Articles category. It even matches this example that you countered with. A Users (fanon) will never cross namespaces, but it does logical bounds that categories separate. Eg, the way that the 'Articles' category is over the Spirituality, Foods, Fauna, Flora, etc categories - all in the same namespace. If we had a category that included /all/ of the single namespace articles written, there would be absolutely zero navigational value for any user to look at that page. They would have no idea what the jumbled list of pages were identifying other than they were just that - a list of articles with little organization or reasoning behind it. Vulmen (talkEoK) 01:13, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
But if we include the option of not having it, we are back to having no harmony, which defeats the purpose of a categorization guide and makes the cleanup work of the fanon portal editors a lot more difficult as they then have to remember the author's preference with each new chapter that is released (and not categorized properly by the author - like there are many). Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 01:15, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

The argument here is how to balance wiki organization with author preference. Authors should be able to organize their categories as they see fit. Fitting certain requirements is a way to ensure a needed level of uniformity, but that is as much as is needed. Vulmen's example is self-evident. --I'm The Bos - Talk 01:17, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Vulmen: Like I've said, there is a far higher degree of commonality between "everything a user has written" than "everything on the site". It's not intuitive to expect readers to either scroll back to the top of the page, or go into the sub-categories to go back to the top category, when what they are looking for is "other works by this writer". Yes, the titles are all bunched together on the top-level category, but who really cares? If no pages are categorised directly under the top-level category, everyone would use the sub-categories. If all pages are categorised directly under the top-level category, everyone would still use the sub-categories, but it's much easier to go to the top-level category. The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:23, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT (again) - I think things should be clean, simple and organized, while still navigational. I think things will stay navigational enough, especially with the property template and the users category. I think ideally all categories like "Chapters (fanon)", "Stories (fanon)," "Characters (fanon)" and "Organizations (fanon)" should not have any pages in them and only subcategories; additionally, all categories on pages should have the fanon name attached to them. That said, I know that might not be best given what's practical. Although the work would take a while but I would be willing to do my part, there are also categories like "Shipping (fanon)" and "Timelines (fanon)" and as of now there is not a fanon on the wiki that has multiple pages on shipping or timelines, so creating subcategories on all of those would seem pointless. However, I think that removing the user cat from the property template as a default is a good place to start. The user cat can always be applied back, but for organization's sake, it shouldn't be the standard. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 01:24, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
888: You say its not intuitive to expect readers to scroll back to the top of the page? I don't see that as anything to worry about. The top of the page is the first thing that users see when they go there, so its not likely that they'll abandon that for the bottom of the page, which they see last. If anything, having the link to the users cat at the top of the page is more likely to make them go there than if it were another category at the bottom. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 01:35, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, users are more likely to "want to read more from this author" after having read the page than before, so it makes sense to have that link at the bottom of the page where a reader finishes reading, rather than expecting them to scroll back up again. In any case, any site navigation needs to be designed with the assumption that the reader is stupid, not smart. Building extra options into the design is the best way of catering to that assumption. The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:47, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough on the "stupid, not smart" point, but how much is this "extra option" worth? I don't think it's worth that much, since even most stupid people would regard the top of the page as the place to go to for more sources. I think since it's not worth that much, organization can be prioritized over the small amount of navigation benefit. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 01:53, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised, but people don't usually automatically "get" that navigation can be found at the top of the page. Of course, those who are web-literate do, but we have to cater to those who aren't quite in that category. That's why Wikia does things like "Read more" at the bottom of the page, because the bottom of a page is also an important space for navigation.

Organisation and navigation go hand in hand. We all know there's no point to the navigation if there's no logical organisation in it e.g. links on our navigation menu are divided into tabs. Equally, there's no point to the organisation if the organisation is difficult to access – which it is, because people often have to search up top-level categories or click multiple times through to them from sub-categories. Ultimately, we organise so that we can navigate. Then why do organisation when the fruits of the organisation are just thrown away? The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:07, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

What if we restructured the property template so it would not have the user cat and placed it a link at the bottom and the top of the page? A lot of fanons have templates at the bottom of the page for lazy and stupid readers, so they already get the concept. I don't see much more trouble in adding an extra piece while still keeping the categorization structure in line. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 02:18, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
And this proposition provides ease of access via navigation to the top-level structure. Lacking the "Users (fanon)" at the bottom of the page is not lacking it at all. Users who are 'stupid' may not understand "Vulmen (fanon)" means "articles by Vulmen" - whereas the top of the page explains "More from this user" concisely. The property template is quite clear; I'm not certain how it could be improved upon.
What ARG suggested is useful. Because as it is; the "users (fanon)" doesn't really explain a thing when it comes to asking a non-intelligible reader of what to click for more information.
And precisely. Let's flip that; why improve navigation - when it ruins organization? Then the navigation to the main users category would be a moot point because there would be no organization to it. They go hand in hand. Vulmen (talkEoK) 02:21, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
How would there be no organisation to the main user category? There is no impact whatsoever to sub-categories. Users can still peruse them as before; there is no harm done to the quality of that navigation. All that is different on the category page itself is that below those sub-categories, there are a large list of pages. You can ignore them if you wish.
The limitations of the templates are such that you can't put a link at the top and at the bottom in the same template. You would need two different templates for that, one at the top and one at the bottom. If you believe that is a better option, I'm not in opposition. I will say though that having the top-level category as a link together with the other categories is intuitive because it simplifies the navigation options into one group, rather than multiple places at the bottom of the page.
Look, at this point I'm going to disengage from this discussion. From my first post here, I made clear that I know my opinion is a minority one among the involved here. My advice continues to be that not using that top-level category amounts to handicapping the power of a categorisation system, but frankly, like I said, for the fanon portal to do otherwise is "no skin off my teeth". I don't see how this can continue on a constructive course rather than devolving into another massive argument requiring a heated vote, so just assume my opinions struck for the purposes of determining consensus. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:43, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

You say that the main focus of your ideals is to allow users to be able to access other works of the author. Would it not then be wise to give them links to other relevant articles they would want to read? If I just finished reading an 'Avatar: Wanted' character page, the most relevant articles would be found in 'Avatar: Wanted Characters (fanon)', not a compilation of all of Twilitlink's works. On the canon side, getting people to read articles is the most important aim; reading the largest variety possible. When reading fanon, we want the users to read the most relevant articles, so the fewest number of categories applied to a page would best serve this purpose. --I'm The Bos - Talk 03:26, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you on a number of grounds and I could elaborate on them, but like I said, I'm disengaging myself and I don't wish to continue to argue further along this line of discussion. I'm sorry, but I don't have anything more to say on this matter. The 888th Avatar (talk) 04:00, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
@ARG: Even though the banner is the first thing people see on a page, it 1. isn't added to a lot of fanons and 2. Like 888th said, once you're done reading a chapter, most people don't scroll back up to see what else they can find there. They want to see a link to the next chapter or an easy access to everything the user has written. The link in the banner isn't even that noticeable. I mean that with the categories at the bottom, it is very clear what they are: Link to categories; while the link in the link in the banner doesn't even look like a like, but more like just a title or something. I have the strong feeling that a lot of readers don't even know they can click it.
If we were to remove the automatic addition of the user cat, then we should add the link to the category in some other way like you suggested. It might not be possible to link it automatically, but maybe we can create something like {{AUTHOR}} that is added at the bottom like the page and creates a heading "Author's work" and the sentence "For the collective works of the author, go [[User (fanon)|here]]." (or something like that). That would be something easy for the fanon portal editors to check whether or not it is on the page. For me, it's either something like that or that or the default addition of the user cat at the bottom, as I do believe that it is important to have an easy, direct link back to the top of the tree.
Different note: I completely agree with you that the big parent categories like "Chapters (fanon)", "Stories (fanon)," "Characters (fanon)" and "Locations (fanon)," etc etc should only be comprised of fanon subcategories and no individual pages.
@Bos: Readers would have the links to the pages relating to the one they're reading at hand, if not in the categories, then at least in the infobox where is it linked to the previous and next chapter and a lot of users have a chapter box at the bottom of their pages as well. Some readers might not even know about the existence of character or location pages or something like that, so then they could click the user (fanon) link to see all the works and be amazed that they have pages written that aren't chapters, but are still related to the story (yes, I'm working with a stupid reader, but there are many of those as well).
@Vulmen: To know what a category stands for, is exactly the reason why I proposed to have a category explanation mandatory on pages. If people would then click "Vulmen (fanon)," the first thing they would see it a small line of text explaining what information that particular category hold.
Like you and 888th said: Navigation and organization go hand in hand, but the organizational part isn't tossed away by including the users cat on every page. Like 888th said: The organizational system stays like it is, the only difference is that there will be a list of written things included underneath the subcategories, which would still be the most used navigational system. Like he pointed out, the extra benefit you'd have then is that you'll always have an easy accessible link back to the top of the tree.
Note in general: I know that we need to find a balance between author's preference and easy navigation for the reader, but isn't is more important for an author to have an easy access to his/her pages for the readers than having a clean for them, but not so accessible for readers category tree? As the author, the person would already know where to find which page, obviously, but the reader doesn't know that, so we should make the system so that is maximizes the lazy/stupid readers ease to go from one thing to another with just one click. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 11:32, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Only if that is the author's preference. I'm favoring author preference here, as I tend to, because I see no need at all for the User (fanon) category to be categorized as you have mentioned. I feel that by limiting categorization, more relevant pages are grouped together and thus when readers go to a category, they will find relevant pages.

Another note that could be mentioned: when the property template was last mentioned, it was was noted that it would not be made mandatory. I think that this forum is a good place to solidify that policy once and for all. I do not support forced implementation of that, since it adds little information that could not be found in an infobox. --I'm The Bos - Talk 12:49, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. Nothing to counter to Lady; it more or less was what I said. ^^" 'Cept for one thing: having the text on the category to explain what the category is - is nothing new. That already should be on every cat page. That is not what I meant. If it takes clicking it to read the description- why then would an 'unintelligible' reader even click "User (fanon)"? They have no idea what it means; and likely never would click to discover that. Hence having the category addition doesn't gain the navigation ability but having a textual description/link adds the use of the navigation ability.
Bos; she didn't say the Users (fanon) should go to every page. She doesn't think it is the best idea to do that, either. She was just saying some way to link to it. While yes; the "More from" isn't the easiest to see, the category link also doesn't add any intelligible "click me" feature to it either...what with the confusion as to what it even means. (Hence the property template is more likely to get clicks) Vulmen (talkEoK) 12:54, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
I support the property template being mandatory. It doesn't infringe on creative freedom - its just a banner, and not every fanon has an infobox. It helps make the fanon portal more organized. However, the user cat needs to be removed from the property template first. As we can see with Vulmen's case, that's the way organization is best served. It's not just about the sub-categories. There are lone pages that should not be thrown into a list of every single chapter or other page the author has done, such as one-shots and guest chapters, which would legitimately fall directly under the user category.
I also support Lady's suggestion for the {{AUTHOR}} template, which is clearer than a category and doesn't interfere with existing category structure. It would take some extra effort, but I think that's the best solution. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 16:07, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
@Bos: You can't really say that it was was noted that it would not be made mandatory as only you and Rass discussed it. For the reasons ARG said, I am most definitely in favor of making the property template mandatory on all pages, like it is stated on the category explanation right now: Adding the property template to all series and chapters and the propertyother to the other pages. This way the fanon portal will get a more harmonized lool, author's will be able to change the rating of a chapter without having to bump up the rating of their entire fanon (and subsequently possibly losing readers), and it will be clear to which author/series a certain page belongs with just one glance when a user stumbles on a random fanon page. It doesn't interfere with author's creativity as it is just a banner at the top on the page that would become part of the fanon layout sort of speak.
Okay, so to recap what has been said: Change the automatic adding of the users category, but add a {{AUTHOR}} template to every page instead, so there is a clear link included on the pages that redirects back to the top of the tree. Is that okay with everyone?
If so, maybe we can move on then to other category related discussion. Can are there any more remarks of the categories on the following pages?
Main page:
  • Category:A to Z (fanon)|[Your fanon title]
  • Category:Story pages
  • Category:[Your username] (fanon)
  • Category:[Your fanon title] (fanon)
  • Category:Genre (fanon)
Chapter page:
  • Category:A to Z (fanon)|[Your chapter title]
  • Category:[Your fanon title] chapters (fanon)
Character page:
  • Category:A to Z (fanon)|[Your character page's title]
  • Category:[Your fanon title] characters (fanon)
  • See ARG's list for other possible categories
The format of the characters page would also be applied to the locations, battles, and events pages (with their own respective category names of course).
The last two category suggestions were in line with what ARG has suggested it above. I totally support his idea of having the characters (fanon), locations (fanon), etc individual pages free, so they would only contain a link to the specific fanon related categories of that specific fanon characters (fanon), specific fanon locations (fanon), etc. (just like the chapters (fanon) only links to other specific fanon chapters (fanon) categories).
Another thing: Which categories go on the category pages? We've already established that each category page should have a short introduction section, but then what about the categories?
User name (fanon)
  • Users (fanon)
Fanon name (fanon)
  • User name (fanon)
  • Stories (fanon)
Fanon name chapters (fanon)
  • Fanon name (fanon)
  • Chapters (fanon)
Fanon name characters (fanon)
  • Fanon name (fanon)
  • Characters (fanon)
Same format as the characters category would be used on the locations, battles, etc categories.
Okido, let the next discussion round begin ;-) Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 02:28, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

We need not have 'User name (fanon)' in every category. It's redundant. It should be on the series category only, making the User category have fewer categories that lead to the same thing. Other than that, everything seems to make sense. --I'm The Bos - Talk 02:47, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yep; the user (fanon) doesn't need to be applied to every category and make everything a subcategory. Take that out and let the Fanon name (fanon) be their parent category. Looks good to go to me! :) Vulmen (talkEoK) 02:57, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The user category only goes on the main story category and not on every one below. A simple rule of thumb for the rest of them is that the main category goes there, along with "[Your fanon title] [whatever kind of category it is] (fanon)." Also, the genre category - if applicable - should go on the main page per what The Bos said a while ago. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 09:28, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the user cat out of the categories.
A minor remark: Since there was voted for the use of sentence case on the canon side and the "Story pages" category is sentence case, shouldn't the genre categories like "Romantic Stories (fanon)," and "One-Shots (fanon)" etc be sentence case as well? Otherwise it will become very confusing as to which category applies sentence case and which doesn't. I'll not open the debate over "[fanon name] Chapters/chapters," "[fanon name] Characters/characters," etc regarding sentence case or not (I know it is now suggested that new categories are all sentence case, but there are many already existing that aren't), as that will be a whole debate again of author's preference vs fanon portal harmony (but if someone wants to, be my guest :-) ), but I think that we should come to an agreement in regards to the not individualized categories like the genre ones. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 10:48, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Fanon-wide categories, such as genres, should be sentence case. As for the individual fanon categories, even if we don't force sentence case upon them against their will, I think the standard should be sentence case and we should also use that in our categorization guide. Maybe have a line about it that "sentence case is preferred." --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 11:04, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, what I'm going for here is: Sidewide categories: Sentence case. Personalized categories: Sentence case is preferred, but not mandatory. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 11:12, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, we said before that all fanon categories should have "(fanon)" at the end except "Story pages." Scratch that - there shouldn't be an exception. There's no reason for an exception. And we should stay consistent. "Story pages" should be renamed as "Story pages (fanon)." --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 11:25, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, there isn't really a reason to exclude the (fanon) suffix to the story pages category. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 11:40, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Summary of changes to be made

Since there haven't been any comments on this for two days, I will recap the changes that will be made one last time. If someone still has remarks, this is your chance, otherwise we will move on with the rewrite of the policy as suggested:

  1. [User name] (fanon) category will be removed from every page, except the main story page and the [Fanon name] (fanon) category. Instead, an {{Author}} template will be created and added to every page at the bottom. Usage: {{Author|[User name] (fanon)}}, which will automatically add the title "See more" and the sentence "For the collective works of this author, see [[:Category:[user name] (fanon)|here]]." (the title and sentence wording is of course still up for debate, but that would be the general idea)
    This change will also entail that:
    1. The property(other) template will be adapted to no longer automatically add the [user name] fanon category.
    2. The {{Author}} template becomes mandatory on all the pages.
    3. The property template becomes mandatory on the main story and the chapter pages.
    4. The property other template becomes mandatory on all the other fanon pages.
  2. Story pages will be renamed Story pages (fanon)
  3. All the sub categories is the Genres (fanon) category will be renamed to fit sentence case standards.
  4. New category names to be created are preferable with sentence case, but not mandatory.
  5. The large parent categories chapters (fanon) (is already the case), characters (fanon), locations (fanon), and battles/events (fanon) should only have links to the specific fanon related categories of that specific subject.
  6. Category pages are categorized as follows:
    User name (fanon)
    • Users (fanon)
    Fanon name (fanon)
    • User name (fanon)
    • Stories (fanon)
    Fanon name chapters (fanon)
    • Fanon name (fanon)
    • Chapters (fanon)
    Fanon name characters (fanon)
    • Fanon name (fanon)
    • Characters (fanon)
    Same format as the characters category would be used on the locations, battles, etc categories.
  7. Fanon pages are categorized as followed:
    Main page:
    • A to Z (fanon)|[Fanon title]
    • Story pages (fanon)
    • [Username] (fanon)
    • [Fanon title] (fanon)
    • [Genre] (fanon)
    Chapter page:
    • A to Z (fanon)|[Chapter title]
    • Category:[Fanon title] chapters (fanon)
    Character page:
    • A to Z (fanon)|[Character name]
    • [Fanon title] characters (fanon)
    • See ARG's list for other possible categories
    Locations page:
    • A to Z (fanon)|[Location name]
    • [Fanon title] locations (fanon)
    • [The nation where the location is situated] (fanon)

I think I got it all, but if I forgot something, just add it to the list, so all the new changes will be organized, clearly visible to all.

Ps: If someone has categorized their fanon chapters as [Fanon name Book 1] (fanon) and then linked that category to [fanon name] chapters (fanon), that will stay the same of course. The idea is that the "chapters (fanon)" category only holds links to "[fanon name] chapters (fanon)". Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 23:43, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Remarks

Perhaps we could have a sandbox page to see how a typical page will look? KataraFanboy Send me a messenger hawk Read my fanon! http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/yankeesrule4ever/santa-katara1.gif 00:50, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with the recap of the policy changes here. As for the author template, perhaps we can see what exactly it will look like in this forum before we make it final? --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 01:08, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. --I'm The Bos - Talk 02:16, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Nyeh - I wish I commented sooner, because I really don't like this whole decision. I could post a lengthy angry comment about it, lately I haven't been very happy on forum outcomes, but usually when I post a lengthy angry comment I receive a plethora of angry comments back, so I'll just sit back and smile and nod. Go ahead and test the new system out. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 03:05, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

@BM: If you have concerns or dislikes about the suggestions, then please don't just smile and nod, but voice your concern and base them with arguments/possible solutions. I don't want an angry rant, that will get us nowhere, but if you but I'd be happy to see if we can come to a consensus that suits everyone :-)
@ARG/KFB: Well, we could make a sandbox, but I don't really see the point to go through the "trouble" to make one, as the {{Author}} template would only be one heading and sentence at the bottom of every page with a redirect to the [user name] (fanon) cat so people can quickly go back to the top of the category page (and I think we all know how a title and a sentence looks like ;-) ) Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 08:36, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I just don't see the purpose of the {{Author}} template at all. It's just a property template, except on the bottom of the page. And even if there is a logical reason for it that I missed, do you realize how much work it will be to remove the "user name (fanon)" from almost every fanon page on the wiki and add the {{Author}}? I don't think there's no point in making the first change, but compared to the amount of work we have to do, I just don't think it's worth it. This fanon wiki has been running smoothly without {{Author}} templates for years. Why change the system we have? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 12:49, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the change is to finally bring some harmony to the fanon fortal. Although it has been running smooth indeed, we have a number of different system being used all at once, which makes it very confusing for new authors to know what the "right" system is, just as it is rather difficult for the fanon author editors to add the right categories/templates cause they wouldn't know what the different author's preferences are.
The {{Author}} wouldn't add the user name (fanon) category, it would only link to the category. This is the middle road chosen between adding the user name (fanon) cat on every page and not adding it at all. The template would provide an easy, one click link back to the top of the category tree, so it will be easier for users to see all the work of that author without having all the pages in one "messy" list on that page. This way, the collective works of the author will be more accessible to readers, which is good for the author.
The work would be lightened substantially with the help of bots. The removing wouldn't be the problem, it's the adding of the template that would be the most work, be even so, it is a step needed to be taken if we want to move towards a harmonized fanon portal. The longer we wait, the more work it will be. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 17:49, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to say that was unreasonable, Lostris. In fact, I get what you're trying to say exactly. But, having a "right" system which should be followed by everyone may be a bit... possibility-less. I completely agree that every page should have the right amount of categories, but having authors open to how they want to set up their page should be up to them, having multiple systems they can choose to follow allows them to make their own creative layouts.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the property template also has a link to the "User name (fanon)" category, just as the plan for the {{Author}} does. Why shouldn't we just make the property template not add the "User name (fanon)" category? Without that aspect, it would be exactly the same as your {{Author}}, and we could skip a massive amount of work and confusion. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 19:56, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
We already are taking the user category off the property template. Having the link in the property template is nice, but that's only at the top of the page. It's more beneficial to have such a link at the bottom of the page so readers can find more from that author after they finished reading. This gives a clear link that they can click on for that and allows the benefits of having every page link to the user category but without making the user categories themselves cluttered and disorganized. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:09, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Something else I just realized - since we're accepting the standard that all categories for pages in the fanon space should contain the suffix "(fanon)" and we're doing this to the "Story pages" category, we should apply this to a couple more. "Completed fanon," "Inactive fanon" and "Discontinued fanon" should be renamed "Completed stories (fanon)," "Inactive stories (fanon)" and "Discontinued stories (fanon)" respectively. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:30, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Most fanon articles, chapters, characters, and locations alike have a user-made template which gives links other chapters, characters, and locations in that series. I think that users will usually use these links or the links to the article's categories at the bottom of the page than the "user name (fanon)" category anyway. Answer me this, does scrolling up to the top of a page take more effort than adding and removing categories and templates across all the fanon articles in the wiki? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 02:08, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think an example 'Author' template should be made in order to give us an idea of what will be at the bottom of our pages. --I'm The Bos - Talk 02:26, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 02:27, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
"Answer me this, does scrolling up to the top of a page take more effort than adding and removing categories and templates across all the fanon articles in the wiki?"
That is not comparing apples to apples. When people visit a page and finish reading it, it takes extra time and effort to scroll back up and people generally aren't in the mood to do that at the time. That's also assuming they know to go back and look for the property template. A clear message at the bottom makes it straightforward for new users and visitors.
The time and effort to make this system happen is extra work for active users in the fanon portal to take to make the site more friendly and accessable to the new users and visitors. Like Lady Lostris said, we can use bots to take care of some of the larger tasks. As for how much work it will be - don't think we're not taking that into account. I accept the responsibility to make the site better for newer users and I think there are other users here who feel the same way. Applying this system will take time, but its doable.
And yes, lets look at an example author template before we put it everywhere. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 02:48, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Then why wouldn't we just put a property template (which does not add the "user name (fanon)" category) at the bottom of the page also? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 12:33, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

It would be similar to the property template, but not the same since its in a different place and focused less on introducing the author than the property template is. It would say "see more" - "For the collective works of this author, see [[:Category:[user name] (fanon)|here]]." --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 15:30, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
@BM: Putting another property template at the bottom is a bit too much I think, as it has no subtlety what so ever. Like I said, the author template is just there to provide an easy redirect back to the top to the category tree. Like ARG already said: people often don't know that there is a link hidden in the property title at the top and it isn't a logical place to go search for one (like 888th stated above). Like ARG said, the property template will already be adapted to not add the user name (fanon) category, but because of that the page will not hold a direct link to the top of the category tree, thus adding a direct, clear link to all the works of the author.
An author can still do with his page what (s)he wants, there will just be some mandatory things like the property and the author template for the common good of the fanon portal. By adding the property template, all fanon pages will be clearly separated from the canon side and he portal as a whole will be more harmonized because of it. The author template on the other hand will allow new users and readers to easily peruse to the author's works, so they will have more visibility. Some users have a template of their own indeed, but one little heading for the benefit of fanon portal harmony isn't going to tamper with the author's own creative layouts.
I'm fully aware of how much work this will be, and I already talked with 888th in regards to how much can be done by bots, but even with the excessive workload, I still strongly feel that a change must be made toward harmony. Personally, I was in favor of keeping the category instead of making a template, but since this is a community and some of the community users didn't want it, so the template -even though a lot of work- will be a middle road between the two preferred options, and just like ARG, I am willing to take on that workload.
@ARG: Yeah, good idea. All the fanon categories should have the (fanon) suffix behind it.
@Everyone: We could make a sandbox, but is that really necessary? It will be just an ordinary title and that one sentence added at the end of every page. It's like the "Author's notes" some people have at the bottom of their pages. The template would just be for easier user, so that the editors would not have to write that sentence each time again. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 17:45, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. For one; if the template doesn't turn out well, it's just that - a template. To fix or change it simply involves editing that one template. It'll be just a straightforward non-flashy thing stating just what ARG shown above - a link back to the user's own (fanon) category but with explanatory text rather than "Users (fanon)" - which doesn't say much at all. Let's just give it a run. :) Vulmen (talkEoK) 23:07, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Can we make this a voluntary policy? I'm still not convinced and think that there's too much work to be done to make one template that's a couple words different than the one that we have to change an aspect of fanons that doesn't even need help, but you've got power in numbers so I know this is going to take me a lot more whining to win the forum. I just don't want to go with this myself because, even with a fanon that's 33 chapters long and has less fans than some with 5 or 6, I know how to get readers. And it's not by having a {{Property}}, ahem, I mean {{Author}} below my pages. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 12:48, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oh; you're misunderstanding I think. :) The suggested author template wouldn't be as big as the property template, it would be a simple line of text in some form or fashion to simply say "more works by the author here." It should be rather clean, really. Trust me, I understand how you feel - as it would apply to ALL my 50+ pages I have, and even get slapped below my chapter template. However, I think it will probably turn out looking cleaner than you fear. If this was going to be a duplicate of the property template - but at the bottom of the page - ewwwwww xD It won't be that. Vulmen (talkEoK) 12:52, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
And most fanons have a chapter template. I think that the average anonymous reader, newbie, or regular contributor who is reading a chapter of a fanon will most likely use the chapter template to navigate to similar works instead of an {{Author}}, I mean, if you finish a great chapter of a fanon wouldn't you want to go the next one, not go to the author's "user name (fanon)" category? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:04, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
And we have not said to take that method of navigation away. It will remain. This will not impact that nor take away from its presence. This allows a link back for navigational purposes to many other articles. There are much more articles available than just chapters at times, such as with mine. A chapter template does not cover all that - nor to written guest chapters, etc. That will not change. Vulmen (talkEoK) 13:07, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

But do you honestly think the average reader will actually go to the "user name (fanon)" category once they read an awesome chapter instead of going to the next chapter? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:11, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Do you really expect all hundreds of users who follow a page can be shoehorned into one way of thinking/click a certain link? People may want to look at what else was done and read the next chapter later, or just want to see what the author has been up to. They may discover things they did not know the author had made. Vulmen (talkEoK) 13:13, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
If this happens, they can simply scroll up to the top of the page! Done. Over. Finished. They've got to where we need with no {{Author}}s. Just a flick of their mouse. Why would we need such a huge operation? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:19, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Please don't complain about how much work it will be, when you won't be doing any of said work. :) There are people here who will put their time into seeing that it is cleanly performed, so at least they will dedicate themselves to seeing this task through. As for the top of the page thing - yeah, I know. -shrug- Did you know it's already that way with many fanons? "User (fanon)" is a category added, so removing that will remove that link at the bottom of the page. Using the author template will keep this there, rather than outright/entirely remove a navigational link. Vulmen (talkEoK) 13:21, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Just as a question, why are we taking the "user name (fanon)" category off most of fanon pages? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:27, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion above? It was said there many a time. Organizational purposes. Vulmen (talkEoK) 13:28, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

I've been getting caught up in the debating. So, back to a previous rant of mine, can we make this a voluntary policy? I just don't find it reasonable. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:36, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

As was questioned of you before and explained now; why not? This topic has been discussed quite openly. Voting is not a "can we do it now" process, but rather only used when necessary. Primarily; discussion and resolution is desired much moreso than "let's go to a vote." Voting is a last means resort. Vulmen (talkEoK) 13:37, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
What did I say about voting? I mean, once I'm out of complaints and you put the policy through, can we choose to follow it? A voluntary policy? Like how using the metric system is a voluntary law in the U.S. ? --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:41, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
There are no voluntary policies, and there certainly aren't any "voluntary laws". Both are by definition binding and compulsory. You cannot choose whether to follow them or not. After all, there's no point making them if no-one has to follow them. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:44, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Aha, sorry about that. I misread what you said "voluntary" became voting. xD Anyway. The optional part will be if you wish to keep the "Username (fanon)" on the page. The AUTHOR template would remain, which isn't much of a change in and of itself. Why would it remain? To keep a certain, clean, expected minimum layout to fanon articles. But yeah the added category is fair game if you wish to put it back on the page. The added template would not be.
That is, after all, the point of this forum. Authors can decide how they wish to design their pages layout/etc, but there needs to at least be a minimum of navigational structure that readers can come to realize and expect of fanon articles. This promotes a clean layout that is easy to understand from the fanon side as a whole, bringing a sense of order about it rather than "whatever goes." Which can often end up without any structure. All that was said above though. Just saying why, now. Vulmen (talkEoK) 13:47, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't DEFAULTSORT my chapters even though it's in the fanon policy, and people are fine with that. I still have concerns, but I completely agree with what you said. And just as a fun fact, the United States law of using the metric system is voluntary. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 13:54, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I'm aware of what the United States' laws are on systems of measurement. The law is that it is optional – a binding law that specifically disallows the enforcement of metric measurements over customary measurements. It's not an "optional law". Laws are by definition inflexible, and can only be fought around their interpretation. The 888th Avatar (talk) 14:41, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
lol ... any further talk on laws to talk pages please? :) Thanks, Vulmen (talkEoK) 14:43, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
There is however a difference between the DEFAULTSORT and the {{Author}} template: although they are on every page (yours is the only exception I know of), the "change" the DEFAULTSORT does isn't visible to everyone, only the ones that look for a certain chapter through the A to Z (fanon) cat, whereas the author template would be a direct visible aid. It would provide a basic navigation layout that user/readers may expect to find on every page, thus it would be easy for them to know how to work the system. Like Vulmen said, if you wish to make any more changes, like keeping the user name (fanon) cat, you may do so, but this template + the property template on every page would be the basic layout of the fanon portal that would be mandatory on every page, so users will always have the same thing to fall back on if the author would've adapted the system a bit. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 18:32, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
It looks like number 3 on the list - renaming of genre categories - has been achieved. The rest will undoubtedly be a long process. Thankfully we'll have bots for part of it. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:58, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Number 2 - renaming "Story pages" to "Story pages (fanon)" has also been done. Can focus on the rest now. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:09, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

  • Remove user category from property template.Yes check Done
  • Rename Story pages to Story pages (fanon).Yes check Done
  • Rename genre categories to sentence case.Yes check Done
  • Make Chapters (fanon) contain only sub-categories.Yes check Done
  • Make Characters (fanon) contain only sub-categories. Yes check Done
  • Make Organizations (fanon) contain only sub-categories. Yes check Done
  • Make Events (fanon) contain only sub-categories. Yes check Done
  • Make Battles (fanon) contain only sub-categories. Yes check Done
  • Make Locations (fanon) contain only sub-categories. Yes check Done
  • Make every fanon category have the suffix "(fanon)." Yes check Done
  • Apply property template to all main story pages. Yes check Done
  • Apply property template to all chapter pages. - ***
  • Apply property other template to all other fanon pages.
  • Apply "Author template" to all fanon pages.
  • Sort the countless fanon images under the right fanon categories.
  • Categorize the fanon images property under images (fanon)/art (fanon)
  • Ensure all category trees are properly organized with no parent categories in the wrong places.
  • Publish completed category guide page. Yes check Done

- *** Finished alphabetically through Avatar: The Legend of the Phoenix

Some other issues

I added a checklist above to show what's been done so far that I hope anyone who wants to help out with can follow. It's pretty much an abbreviated version of Lady's earlier summary. I also wanted to point out a few issues I've thought of.

I noticed that many pages in the character category don't belong to any fanon and were created as stand-alones. I took care of some of them by creating a category for the character creation entries, but even so - it may be impossible to make it all sub-cats. Perhaps we could leave the ones that aren't a part of a fanon in that category. I mean, we could create another category for them (stand-alones?), but that seems redundant.

Another thing that Vulmen brought up on the noticeboard is free-add pages and what should we do with them. They're pages anyone can edit and add information to, but they haven't been touched for a while, when the fanon portal was different. Some of them apparently mimic older versions of the canon articles on their topics. And some of them could be reformatted.

I think we should mention the needs help category as a footnote in the categorization guide. It's started serving a new purpose. It's not only userspace pages. Some pages are marked to "need help" but are good enough to not be in userspace. I think it should work this way: if a fanon needs help with something, someone can tag it with the category and add in a revision summary something like "templates", "grammar" or "formatting" to be more specific. Then a fanon admin, fanonbender or any user who wants to lend a hand can work on it - being able to look at the page history and use the revision summary as a guide if necessary.

Under construction - what's it's defined purpose, if it has one? I've seen it misused frequently. A lot of users are under the impression that the UC template "protects" their page from being moved to userspace. It doesn't.

I know we've got our hands full with fanon pages, but I've noticed the fanon images need a lot of cleanup. We have an images category and an art category. You would think all artwork is in the art category and all other images go in the image one, but right now they're both a jumble of each. I think Images (fanon) should be at the top with Art (fanon) underneath. They can divide into story cats and user cats. Under images would be [Fanon name] images (fanon) for each work and under art could be [User name] art (fanon) for each user/artist. This would sort of mimic the system we have with normal story categories and user categories. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 23:53, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Very good idea about the checklist!
Personally, I must admit that I don't really care about the free-add pages. I make sure that they don't have spelling mistakes etc, but I don't really see the point of having them in the first place. It's a free-add page, so basically it is a page of people's speculation for that type of bending. Imo, those people, if they really want to voice their opinions on a fanon page, they should just create one of their own as now, a lot of the speculation contradicts and then one nony removed the edits of another nony and then it gets put back and so that editing circle keeps on turning without a real point. So I would even be inclined to say that I am in favor of deleting those pages all together.
As for the "needshelp" category. I think that we should mention that on the categorization page somewhere indeed that an author can add that category if they want help with something. The "danger" however of adding that category with the specification of "needs template help" or whatever is that people will just quickly add that category to get a +1 in their category counter for the badge instead of adding the templates themselves as it is really not hard to do. I have made a Word document for myself where I have all the templates together, so it takes less than a minute to add it to a page, meaning that people will not have to go through so much more trouble in adding the templates themselves instead of adding the category to tell others to do it for them. In regards to this, we should also put it clearer somewhere which template goes where as a lot of users, even the regular ones, don't know when to use the property and when to use the properyother template.
Maybe in the same line, we can start an official page like an "editor wanted" page where everyone authors can post a link to the fanon they are searching an editor for and future editors can post their link so other can see that they are willing to become an editor. Anyway, that was just a side note.
The FanonUC category is pretty much redundant I think. I'm of the opinion that if a page is still under construction, it shouldn't have been posted yet. Besides, don't the FanonUC and the Future template more or less have the same purpose? I say we delete the FanonUC and keep the Future one.
Hmm... Is it really necessary to have both? Can't we just merge them under Images (fanon) as that is what they all are. Whether the image is art or a picture, it's all an image. People don't know how to properly use the categorization system anyway for that, so why complicate it further? Although... Hmm... Just thought of something. If we were to keep the art (fanon) category, we could clearly post a banner at the top of that page saying that if someone wants to use an image from that category, they should contact the artist. I like the suggested categorization system for the images, so ignore what I've said at the beginning of this paragraph :-)
On another note, for some reason the CompletedFanon template no longer automatically adds the "Completed fanon series" (or whatever the right category is nowadays) to the page. Maybe a code guru could work his/her magic and add the category addition to the template again so we won't have to go through every completed fanon to add that category. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:15, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look over what was said, but as per LL, I fixed the CompletedFanon template - Leftover problem from 888th Bot's fix. --I'm The Bos Wall 00:39, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
The problem I've seen when looking over the character list is pretty much what ARG noticed. Another problem is that there are several characters that are the only character article for a series. What do we do in that instance? Should we make categories for a single character? --I'm The Bos Wall 00:59, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

About images.. I think we should keep the current categorization for them, Category:Images (fanon) and Category:Art (fanon). I don't find necessary to make categories for each "artist", just optional as they are now, like Vulmen's or Gaang Jr. Art's categories (one of the names should be decided there though for those categories: "Username fanart" or "Username Art (fanon)"). So, only "Images (fanon)" and "Art (fanon)" should have to be separated correctly.

I agree with the banner suggested by Lady at the top of the "Art (fanon)" category.

Btw, I don't think this type of category is necessary, and it's the only one and it only has two images... Should it be deleted? Dcasawang1wall 01:02, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I actually think we should have things like Azula images (fanon). If you look in canon, there are fanart drawings that inappropriately are listed under "Katara images" and such. They should instead be rerouted to an appropriate (fanon) category and excluded from canon shots. (examples: one, two) Huh; I swear there was another. Anyway; they shouldn't be routed to Katara canon images IMO. No matter their art quality.
I'm also of the opinion that we really needn't have a random character page lingering around that isn't being used anywhere. It's unused clutter. If it isn't tied to a fanon; it's a dead page/orphan page and is better suited in user space. Vulmen (talkEoK) 01:11, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, those images definitely shouldn't be under "Category:Katara images", just Sprite or Art (fanon). Well, those categories like "Azula images (fanon)" would be useful indeed.. but then new categories for all characters (fanon) should be created. Dcasawang1wall 01:22, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
Only if they are used, of course. A category with no images would be pointless. :) Vulmen (talkEoK) 01:25, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
@Lady: I don’t see much point in most of the free-add pages. Like I said, they’re pretty much wiki-relics now. I might be up for deleting them. But we should probably look into it and see how much they’re being used and by who first, cause that’s a LOT of content to be getting rid of in one swoop.
I see what you mean about the “badge-editing” and the categories, but I don’t think that will be an issue. The kinds of users who badge-edit the most are newer users who probably aren’t reading this forum and won’t take a close look into how to use templates. And they probably aren’t the kinds of users who fix it themselves either. If any badge-editing problem arises it can be dealt with through warnings, the way we handle any other such behavior.
I think an editor wanted page is a fantastic idea. I’ve seen many cases where it would have been useful lately. But that is straying a bit from the topic of this forum…
I agree with you. The UC fanon should be deleted and any case where its appropriate it can be replaced with the future one.
@DC and Vulmen: The canon images are organized into several smaller categories. This discussion is about making the fanon portal as neat and orderly as possible. That should include fanon images. I would support “Username art (fanon)” over “Username fanart” because of the “(fanon)” suffix and keeping all fanon-related categories consistent with that. As for the character categories, I’d support creating and filling those image categories for the canon characters in fanon, since those are the ones that will appear the most across multiple fanons. If an author or artist creates several pictures of the same character and wants a category for them, they can make the category and put it under their own tree. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 04:39, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

@ARG:I don't know about that it will be a lot of information to delete. It will be a lot of pages, yes, but a lot of information? I doubt that. Like you pointed out yourself, most of them are wiki-relics and frankly, they're not really the high quality relics I want to have around to represent the wiki. Some of them are almost an identical copy of the element page we have on the canon side and the information that is new is just some kind of weird bending move. If a user is using such a distinct new move, then it is likely that the move will be explained in the fanon itself, and does not warrant a page of its own. I get the feeling those free-add bending articles are more for fun than something real. I am yet to see a fanon author use "Paperbending" or Gravitybending" (which is btw only a few lines long. If this wasn't categorized as a free-add article it would've been moved to the user space by now due to lack of content.) Most people that add to those pages are nony-passersby who seldom even stick around long enough to see what becomes of the page. Edits made by account users are mostly restricted to cleanup up the page, and then I think that that time could be used better to clean up a portion of the fanon portal that i actually worth while.

You may say that the new users are mostly the badge editors and that they are the ones that don't know how to add the templates, and you're right about that, but that kind of justifies my question as to why it would be necessary for other users to add that category. If another user already takes the trouble to edit another one's fanon, then that usually means that they have some understanding of how the fanon portal works and what needs to be done. It seems redundant and badge-editing like to me for them to add the category instead of doing the work the category asks for. I would just list somewhere that the author can add that category is (s)he needs help with something. If we were to make an "editor wanted" page, we could maybe make it so that every page that has the "needshelp" tag is listed on that page (or that the page has a direct link to the category). Buy you're right, this is straying from the point, I'll discuss this sometime later with you :-)

@Vulmen and Dc: I hadn't noticed that yet, but ARG really has a point that the images (fanon) category is seriously under... er... cleaned? It could benefit from some clear categorization system. Adding a category for each artist could come in handy for people who want to use an artist made image as they would immediately know which user they would need to contact without searching the page too much (as we all know how lazy people can be when it comes to researching things). I'm also with ARG that every fanon related category should have the suffix (fanon), otherwise our earlier harmonization movements have been for nothing.

@Bos: Thanks for fixing that, I should really get around and learn myself some coding mumbo jumbo ^^".

@Everyone: Hmm, yes, the "fanon-less characters" have been an issue indeed. I agree that they are pretty irrelevant if they are not tied to a fanon, but some users start with creating the character pages before moving on to the fanon. The most apparent example of a user that has fanon-less characters is Dr.Doom23. I'm still in favor of removing those characters from the character (fanon) category as well, but I'm not quite sure yet to where. Maybe we could create a category for those characters, but what should we call that? "Fanon-less characters (fanon)" sounds incredibly stupid and contradictory with the suffix ^^". Ideas on this are very much appreciated.

As for other fanons who have only one character/location/whatever. I think they should have their own category as well as people will search for a specific character/location/battle/etc related to a certain fanon instead of browsing through a seemingly endless list of random pages, often being forced to open them to see to which fanon they belong, so I believe a fanon related category for each page, even if that would mean that the category would only hold 1 page, should be created. (which would mean another change in the categorization guide as now only the fanon, fanon chapters and user category are made mandatory) Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 09:51, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

The needs help cat can be helpful if a good user notices something is missing but doesn't have the time to do it all at the moment. Maybe they're on their way out or maybe they found twenty or so pages that needed help at once. I've never had trouble finding pages that had something lacking.
I agree with Lady that fanons with one character/etc. should still have the category and the guide should be changed accordingly. It makes the character category more organized and navigable.
As for the fanon-less characters, I would be fine with creating some sort of category if its appropriate. Maybe a separate one for the fanon-less characters of different users? --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 12:04, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and a lot of the images in here belong in the fanon categories as well. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 12:20, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
I feel kind of bad shoving this onto someone else's plate, but I just simply don't have the skill to do it myself :-/ I think it's about time someone made the {{Author}} template. It will be the most tedious job to implement and will partially be done by bot, but to lessen the botbender's workload, it will also be manually added. We're now already going from page to page to see it the property templates (PT for short is anyone who looked at the RC was wondering what it meant) are in order, but if the template was created, we could already add that one to some pages instead of having to go back later to add it again. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 09:19, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
{{Author}}. Is there any change that should be made? (Examples 1 and 2). Dcasawang1wall 20:00, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
I like it. In this case, simple is best. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:21, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased on it's result. BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 20:15, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


There has been a misunderstanding and this forum is referenced as for the reasoning. If one would look back over this conversation, I think it would be quite clear. However, I will re-emphasize it now because this is becoming an issue.

This is the default layout as in, the minimal requirements for what must be on fanon author pages. I fear people are taking this to mean what is suggested here must be what is on every fanon. The "User (fanon)" category has been recently forcibly removed from users fanon pages, even so far as chiding them for applying it. This forum; again, shows the minimal requirements, the users cat should be applied to the main page. However, if the author chooses to apply the user category to all of their fanon articles, they are free to do so. This was the agreement reached above; and I feel it must be re-addressed now before this gets taken too far and "assumed" into policy. Vulmen (talkEoK) 20:03, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Better mention that to LL and PSU because they've also issued the same warnings and would most likely do the same actions as me had I refrained. In my eys, putting any extra categories aside from what this guide says the minimum amount to place, can be considered (in some ways) badge editing. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:06, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Don't be so hasty to call that badgeting, when it is simply an author decision to include that category. It is simply a choice for categorization that we shouldn't hinder. And; I put this here to address everyone, not simply one person, or I would have done it on just your talk page. This is entirely the proper place to re-address this to ensure this is seen and covered by all eyes. Vulmen (talkEoK) 20:08, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

The thing of it is -- these changes were agreed to and carried out as written, and all of them. If we change the policy, we would have to go back and re-add categories, which would be very messy. Policy is accepted and agreed to by all users, is it not? KataraFanboy Send me a messenger hawk Read my fanon! http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/yankeesrule4ever/santa-katara1.gif 20:11, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

It seems PSU tends to agree with my opinion (not of badge editing). Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:12, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
You miss the point. The minimal layout does not require the user category to be applied. Hence, nothing would go back to be re-added. It is the author's decision whether or not to apply that category; it is not a mandatory procedure. Vulmen (talkEoK) 20:13, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, the purpose of the author template was to replace the user (fanon) category for organizational purposes, correct? And so we are amending the policy to put that in. Again, policy is accepted and agreed to by all users, correct? KataraFanboy Send me a messenger hawk Read my fanon! http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/yankeesrule4ever/santa-katara1.gif 20:17, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Requirement as per above: A minimum acceptance of the Author template/property template on all pages. User cat on main page only.
This does not rule out the ability of author choice of applying their user category if they so desire. This is simply the default, minimal layout. Vulmen (talkEoK) 20:20, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

As I missed the original discussion, this is probably not my grounds to speak. Regardless, I see nothing that says this was a minimal requirement, the summary of changes that were to be made included to remove the user categories and replace them with the AUTHOR template. KataraFanboy Send me a messenger hawk Read my fanon! http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/yankeesrule4ever/santa-katara1.gif 20:24, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yes; please read through the discussion then, so you could understand that part of it. Right before the summation Lady had said this:
"Like Vulmen said, if you wish to make any more changes, like keeping the user name (fanon) cat, you may do so, but this template + the property template on every page would be the basic layout of the fanon portal that would be mandatory on every page, so users will always have the same thing to fall back on if the author would've adapted the system a bit."
This was the agreement and consensus. I do not see anywhere that suggests that we are to strictly force users into this one limiting guideline, as this was simply a way to ensure clarity and a minimum layout across the fanon namespace to bring order to it. The "to-do"s was exactly that; remove the user category from the template (which removed it everywhere) because by default the user cat is not applied to everything. That doesn't mean it can't if the author wants it there. This was the agreement reached; and why I am re-opening this for discussion since it was misunderstood. I do not see a valid reason to disallow authors that choice. Vulmen (talkEoK) 20:28, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing on my part, as a fanon admin. *Backs away* KataraFanboy Send me a messenger hawk Read my fanon! http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/yankeesrule4ever/santa-katara1.gif 20:32, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

@H-Man: I never issued "a warning" to users about the user category. Then only thing I did was sending a message to Śmierdziel, explaining why the categories were removed at first and I said that it wasn't required for him to put them back, I never prohibited him to do so.
@Everyone:I do, however, see where the confusing came from and this should be addressed clearer indeed for the future. The "preferred" fanon layout is the one where only the fanon's main page (and the pages that have no other category to be sorted under, but that's beside the point at this moment) has the user category. This is the layout that will be added to the fanons (I'm mainly thinking about all the existing stories there were before the implementation of this rule, but I'm also speaking about the new stories and the categorization for those. If you categorize some else's story, do so by taking the preferred categorization guide in mind), thus removing the user category from other pages, BUT if the author, and only s/he, re-adds the category, then that person is outing his/her creative freedom and preference in having all the pages in one big category and that person is free to do so.
So, is it preferred? No. Is it allowed? Yes, as long as the author follows the mandatory rule of adding the {{Author}} template as well.
I apologize for any confusion there was and we'll make sure to state this clearly in the categorization guide that is to come. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 12:04, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Now that the major re-categorization is done and only the property + author templates need to be added, I'll start to rewrite the basic categorization guide Rass has constructed one of the following days. When I'm done, I'll post it here again for everyone to be able to voice their last remarks before we make it official policy for the days to come.
Btw, a thank you to all the people who've helped out so far in getting the task done, it's really appreciated! Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 21:13, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
I will join Lady in thanking everyone who's helped out so far. I just clicked "follow" for this page so I'll get a notification about that later. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:18, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Proposed categorization guide

For those interested, here is a draft version of the Categorization Guide. Any remarks you may have go below.

The guide only deals with the categorization of pages. I haven't added anything about the DEFAULSORT, the mandatory property templates and the Author template and its usage as I believe it would be more beneficial for clarity to create a separate "Fanon layout guide" for this. The categorization guide already has a rather extensive length and a lot of list summaries, it doesn't need more complicated explanations of how templates work and lists of how to fill them, that is for the next guide. Let us first see if we can get this guide through community consensus before moving on to the next one.

Just to keep things easy to follow: please structure your remarks according to the numbers given in the proposed guide. That way it will be easier to adapt the guide later to community consensus. Okay, remark away people! Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 15:22, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Remarks

Is Unorthodox benders (fanon) a new category that it's going to be created?

This part in the "Chapter pages" I think it seems incomplete, it says: "You cannot have a story without chapters, and to keep all your chapters organized and at maximum visibility" and then there's the list with the two categories. Is that referred to the addition of those categories or to something else is missing there?

Maybe this is not necessary, since it can be obvious, but.. when it says "For characters who are benders:" could be "For characters who are benders, also add as appropriate:", so it doesn't sound like it's excluding the previous "case". And same with characters "who have specific traits".

Also, in the last section a specification about art categories could be added, like Vulmen art (fanon). Dcasawang1wall 15:51, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

The "Unorthodox benders (fanon)" category was a typo on my part. The category already exists, but it's completely capitalized, so the category should've been linked Unorthodox Benders (fanon) (like it is now).
Yes, totally right. For some reason I forgot to finish that sentence <.< Should be fixed now as I added "You cannot have a story without chapters, and to keep all your chapters organized and at maximum visibility, the following categories should be added:"
To fix your last remark, I've added "more than one category of the following list can apply to a character" and provided the following example under the list of possible categories to add: "Eg. An Airbending civilian who hails from the Air Nomads and passes his days as an assassin, would be categorized under: "Air Nomads (fanon)", "Airbenders (fanon), "Assassins (fanon), and "Civilians (fanon)"."
Added a small guide for the "user name art (fanon)" category. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 17:37, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
If there is a "The" in a fanon's title, e.g. The First Avatar, is the word placed outside the title when categorizing (i.e. First Avatar, The) or is the word placed in front as in the original title of the fanon (i.e. The First Avatar)? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 17:43, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
For this moment, there isn't a set policy for that. It has been mentioned before, but it was never put into a general policy of some sort, so for the time being that would be up for the author's preference in creating the category. It would seem logical to omit prefixes like "the" and "Avatar" as they are hardly ever used to address the fanon (think of Energy Sage actually being Avatar: Energy Saga, same with Guardian being Avatar: Guardian.) It's a bit different when it comes to "the", but then again, it's no use to have over a dozen fanons sorted on "the". So if everyone agrees on leaving the prefixes "Avatar" and "The" out of the category name, that can be added as well in the guide. This doesn't mean, however, that all the existing categories should be renamed. They are fine as they are, but it could be something to take into mind for the future. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 17:52, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
The category guide looks pretty good by my take. I think we should note that its preferred to skip prefixes like "the" and "Avatar" in the title - although ultimately that's the author's decision. I agree that we shouldn't rename all the existing categories for those, but we should rename some of them if this is the standard we're promoting. I think we can rename the ones that are inactive or discontinued and where the author has been gone for quite a while.
Should we add the brackets to the forms so it would be [[Category:A to Z (fanon)|the page's name]], since that's how it looks when they go into the page. Also, it sounded awkward and sudden when it said "category tree" in the second sentence - just because I'm not sure new users will know what a "category tree" is yet. Lastly, I think we should have a note at the end where we mention the "Needs help (fanon)" category and how it can be added to pages that are lacking in something. Ideally, I think whoever adds the category should include a revision summary and say "templates, grammar, paragraph structure, etc." to indicate what the fanon needs help with. Then the Fanonbenders or any other users can access the category and change it as need be. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go around renaming perfectly fine categories, that just seems rather pointless to me. If that's the price for "promoting to skip the prefixes" then I draw the line there and say not to change anything. Maybe we can take up this discussion again when we're going to create the layout guide and handle this under the DEFAULTSORT section as that can fix the alphabetizing situation as well.

The brackets can be added, doesn't make much difference to me. That "category tree" part was a reminiscence of the original guide proposal. Again, I don't have a tie with it, so I have no qualms with deleting it :-)

About the "needs help (fanon)" category, again, I'm a bit iffy to add that. I know I was the one who suggested it, but I don't know. If anyone should add that, it is to be added by the author and the author alone. I see no reason why another user should ever add that category to someone else's page except for gaining the category count for the badge. If a user comes across a low quality page, they should either take the time to fix it themselves or leave a message on the FA notice board (that was partially the reason why it was created anyway), but I don't see any added value in that passerby adding that category to point other to where there is still work to be done. If that person doesn't have the time at that moment to fix it, then he/she should jot the page down somewhere to return later, but not add the category.
But as I said, I can agree to the author adding that category, but then under the condition that when they do, they agree that other users can alter some of their chosen wording to upgrade the quality of their fanon, much like how the Fanonbenders work. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 21:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see renaming a few extra categories as much of a "price" to pay. The category guide should use the cleanest format possible and that should be the "default" - even though the author can change it if he/she pleases. Renaming or resorting a couple categories doesn't seem like much - especially when countless other categories from the past have already been renamed. If you insist, I'm fine to continue this on the "fanon layout guide" forum - I just thought now would be the time since it pertains to categories. As you said in the first paragraph of your draft, one of the vital purposes for this is locating a fanon story. This is easiest when they are all sorted alphabetically by their common names. Currently, we have distracting clutter around the "A" and "T" sections and its like the alphabet loops around multiple times, rather than just once.
Once again, I'm gonna have to differ with you on the needs help category. Although it may be most appropriate for the author to add it, it can be beneficial when others do, too. They may not have time to fix it all at the moment, so they tag it for them or someone else later. A good user can do this for legitimate reasons: they know it needs help but don't know themselves how to fix it, they don't have the time to fix the full page at the moment (some fanons do need a lot of help) or they found several pages that need help at once (I think everyone here knows its not hard to find pages on the fanon portal nowadays that are lacking in something). The needs help category would fill with pages that require it - ideally, it should be emptied as much as possible, although new pages would be added to it on a regular basis. Anyone who wants to get involved can simply access the category and find what needs what - the category helps them help the users - like "help me help you" or "help me help them." It also has the spirit of community cohesion, since its easy for people to go there and all "pitch int." The only drawback I've heard about it is the badge-editing issue. But how big an issue would this really be? Newer users tend to badge edit the most - and they're less likely to use the correct categories and templates. You don't see a many users now slapping "UC", "Red links" or "Future" templates on random pages. We should think about the clear benefits rather than over-worry ourselves with a problem that doesn't even exist yet. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:36, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it wouldn't be that much trouble, I worded myself wrong there, but I simply don't see the point of it. It would be "trouble" without a cause imo. The other categories got renamed because they were of the wrong category format, as in, no (fanon) suffix, or they, when it was about side wide categories, weren't sentence cased. Now the change would be solely for "decluttering" the A and the T sections for easier locating the fanons, which I doubt. If some fanons are sorted on the actual fanon name, but others on another name, minus a certain prefix, then in the end no one will know which fanon is sorted where. No one will know eventually which author prefers to have his/her fanon sorted on the actual name and which without the prefix. And by diverting the sorting from one letter to another, we're not necessarily "fixing" things, we're merely relocating the problem. I just don't see to need to go renaming all those perfectly fine categories for that when the issue, if there is any, could be resolved with the sorting template were we to decide that.
I'm was merely transferring what I saw happening with the addition of the "FanonUC" category to the "Needs help (fanon)" category, so I can safely say that I wasn't over-worrying myself with a problem that doesn't exist. You're right that it doesn't exist for the needs-help category (obviously), but it does for the FanonUC category as it got added too many times without any reason. The sole reason I could think of was "badge-editing". Is that such a major problem. Maybe not, but it should be avoided by all means if we can, that means, not opening the door to it like the needs help category would. Just as everyone can check the category, everyone can check the FA board as well. Again, that was partially what it was created for. I really see why the author could benefit from the category, but I can't see why other's can't just fix things or drop a message to the FA notice board if they don't have the time. If it's for the use of a nice list where people can quickly see what fanons need help, such a list can always be created manually and opened up to all to add their fanon freely. It can even be linked to the "Editor wanted" page like we talked about a lot of messages up.
From experience I know that the most "need help pages" are the ones that need the property template, maybe a series/chapters/character infobox, now the Author template and a quick spelling check. All that really doesn't take that long. It's been explained before, and a clear guide on how exactly to use all the different templates and how to fill them in correctly will be created with the "fanon layout guide". Personally I have made a document where I have compiled all the frequently used fanon templates, so it's a quick copy/paste and fill in for me to clean up a page. Then a quick spelling check, the basic spelling check that your internet browser has will suffice to clean up a page sufficiently, and voilà, the page s cleaned. That really doesn't take that long and doesn't need to be shoved on the working plate of someone else by adding the category and be done with it, as usually the template/category adders aren't the ones doing the job (and I'm basing this statement on previous wiki template activity). Of course I don't expect anyone to make the same document that I have, but the layout guide will have the same effect as my document and thus make it very easy and clear to all how to add the required templates etc. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 22:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
I actually have to agree with the removal of the Needs help (fanon) category altogether. As has been pointed out by H-Man and others, there is a bit of subjectivity in deciding what article is "not up to par." As such; if a user thinks an article is of poor quality, but they can't make up their mind whether to move it to their user space, it would be better to contact an administrator via the Fanon Admin noticeboard, rather than place "Needs help" on it. That way; then an appropriate administrator can have a look at the article in question and come to a fitting conclusion. It seems a better procedure than having numerous users subjectively adding "Needs help" on things. I'm up its deletion.
Organizations, Battles, Events - these sections should follow the layout of the other sections for seamless reading. Essentially, the suggested category name should be a bulleted point, perhaps with the explanation on the right of that. And; lol...I got shameless advertisement on the page. -ahem- ^^' Anyway; it looks good, very well drafted up. Vulmen (talkEoK) 23:13, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
The advertising credit goes to Rass who has used your fanon as an example, the rest of the credit goes to the participants of this very lengthy debate xD Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 23:28, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

@Lady: If some fanons are sorted on the actual fanon name, but others on another name, minus a certain prefix, then in the end no one will know which fanon is sorted where. No one will know eventually which author prefers to have his/her fanon sorted on the actual name and which without the prefix. And by diverting the sorting from one letter to another, we're not necessarily "fixing" things, we're merely relocating the problem.

Like I said, the fanon would be sorted by the name it is known as best and its place in the alphabet would be defined by that. It’s not “relocating the problem” because the fanons are organized into one alphabet, rather than several. The alphabet starts, then it pauses and starts over when it gets to “Avatar” and then it starts again because some of the fanons that start with “Avatar” don’t have a colon or don’t have the same spacing. Then the original alphabet begins after “A” and goes to “T” where it restarts again – then the original alphabet continues after “T” and finishes. Ideally, “Daughter of Fire,” “Dancing Shadows” and “Darkness Within” should be close to one another, since those are the names people know them by – the names that actually matter. Instead, they are scattered to “Avatar: Daughter of Fire,” “Dancing Shadows” and “The Darkness Within.” Many libraries omit “the” for this very reason and in our case, omitting “Avatar” would be equally appropriate.

I can safely say that I wasn't over-worrying myself with a problem that doesn't exist. You're right that it doesn't exist for the needs-help category (obviously), but it does for the FanonUC category as it got added too many times without any reason.

The FanonUC category has been added because people assume it “protects” their fanon from being moved to userspace and because people don’t properly understand it. I have yet to see a single case where it has been added solely for badge-editing.

The sole reason I could think of was "badge-editing". Is that such a major problem. Maybe not, but it should be avoided by all means if we can, that means, not opening the door to it like the needs help category would.

If it’s not a major problem, than we don’t need to avoid it by any means necessary. Technically, any category “opens the doors” a little for badge editing. We already have a procedure to deal with badge-editing: warn, undo and if need be, block. That would still be the case if any new badge-editing arises – which I still doubt.

I can't see why other's can't just fix things or drop a message to the FA notice board if they don't have the time.

“A good user can do this for legitimate reasons: they know it needs help but don't know themselves how to fix it, they don't have the time to fix the full page at the moment or they found several pages that need help at once.” That was my reasoning before and I think its still sufficient. Fanon Admins are not the only ones who are allowed to fix fanon articles.

If it's for the use of a nice list where people can quickly see what fanons need help, such a list can always be created manually and opened up to all to add their fanon freely. It can even be linked to the "Editor wanted" page like we talked about a lot of messages up.

Okay, that “nice list” has to come from somewhere and it has to be maintained. The purpose of the “editor wanted” section would be to find a regular editor for one’s fanon – not to correct mistakes on a certain page. With the needs help category, the category is added with the revision summary and it goes straight into the category page, which becomes the list. I do not see a more efficient way to create and maintain the list than that.

@Vulmen: I actually have to agree with the removal of the Needs help (fanon) category altogether. As has been pointed out by H-Man and others, there is a bit of subjectivity in deciding what article is "not up to par." As such; if a user thinks an article is of poor quality, but they can't make up their mind whether to move it to their user space, it would be better to contact an administrator via the Fanon Admin noticeboard, rather than place "Needs help" on it.

The fanon standarda page is pretty clear on what needs to be moved to userspace and what doesn’t. “Articles of this quality will either be somewhat bad in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure, or they will be very bad in only one or two aspects.” It lists the criteria and says what needs to be done. It’s very clear – it’s not subjective. And furthermore, the “Needs help” category does not pertain to what needs to be moved to userspace. An article can meet the criteria above to not be moved to userspace but still need help in some area. The fanon standards page lists a few levels and what defines them and says specifically that a page is not required to be at the highest level to be kept on the wiki. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 01:36, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

@ARG:Sorted by the name it is known as best and its place in the alphabet would be defined by that.
But there's your problem: it's known by the already existing community under that specific name. You really think that a new user known that Avatar: Guardian is more known as Guardian than Avatar: Guardian? But I have already said that I'm willing to sort this issue with the DEFAULTSORT, I just don't see the point of having to rename the categories, even of the inactive fanons. If a category was made with the prefix then and has the right format, why go around and needlessly change that? There is just no logic reason for that. Like I've said a few times already, why go around and needlessly delete and recreate categories is a DEFAULTSORT can fix it just the same?
I have yet to see a single case where it has been added solely for badge-editing.
I haven't. I have seen it recently been added to fanons who were marked inactive or even discontinued.
If it’s not a major problem, than we don’t need to avoid it by any means necessary. We already have a procedure to deal with badge-editing: warn, undo and if need be, block.
Badge-editing should always be avoided. What I meant with "not such a big problem" is that the fanon portal maybe doesn't have had such badge-editors, but that doesn't mean that badge-editing on itself isn't a major problem. Sure, we can warm and revert the edits, but again, what's the point in going around and being the cleanup squad if you can avoid the edits all together?
Technically, any category “opens the doors” a little for badge editing.
Not every category opens the door to badge editing, not like this one. If you mean badge-editing as in "go around and helping a category be changed to the proper one on a clear set of pages" badge editing, than okay. But the needs helps (fanon) category would open the door for everyone to place the category on every page they please, even if that page may not need the category entirely. Will it be considered badge editing then? Probably not, because chances are that their is something on that page that could use same help, a spelling mistake here and there that would've justified the addition of the category. But is that badge editing? I think so. Adding a template on a page that could've just as easily been fixed, but slap it anyway just for the category plus you'll get from that -which will happen, again, I refer to previous wiki template activity- is badge editing in my book.
“A good user can do this for legitimate reasons: they know it needs help but don't know themselves how to fix it, they don't have the time to fix the full page at the moment or they found several pages that need help at once.” That was my reasoning before and I think its still sufficient.
There is a reason why I didn't follow your reasoning before and that is because I'm not convinced of it's "sufficiency". Good users can do that for legitimate reasons, sure, but that also can do that with badge editing in mind. Would anyone accuse them of that? Of course not, they're good, esteemed users, but that doesn't change the fact that it still is badge editing. The addition of the FanonUC category to inactive/discontinued fanons like I mentioned above was also done by good, well-known users (which I will not name for obvious reasons here as I just want to point a practice out here, not point the finger at people in specific).
Fanon Admins are not the only ones who are allowed to fix fanon articles.
Did I ever said they were? The FA notice board is supposed to work like the Admin notice board. All the notices there are watched by the admins (obviously) and a great deal of rollbackers as well. If the FA notice board would become the place to be for low quality fanon mentions, that board will be monitored by other fanon editors as well and they will chip in whenever they can. I have deleted many comments someone alerted an admin for on the admin notice board, why would the working of the FA notice board be any different?
Okay, that “nice list” has to come from somewhere and it has to be maintained. The purpose of the “editor wanted” section would be to find a regular editor for one’s fanon – not to correct mistakes on a certain page. With the needs help category, the category is added with the revision summary and it goes straight into the category page, which becomes the list. I do not see a more efficient way to create and maintain the list than that.
I'm not going to be hypocritical here and say that is not an efficient way to make a list, but the efficiency doesn't outweigh the downside of the system imo and that is the fact that there will be a lot of fanons added then that don't need the template and the category, just some minor fixes, but that get the template anyway because of the category addition instead of the fixes from the start. I know you doubt that, but these few months I've been active here, the template usage, when the addition of a category was involved, really is at my side here. It happens everyday as well. When a new fanon page is posted, categories are always the first to be added. Why? They're categories, you get a nice plus on the counter for that and it doesn't take a lot of work. But what about the property template or the infoboxes? They often get left behind to be added by someone else and the only reason I can think of is because they take longer and if people would take the time to and add the infobox and the PT and AT and the categories and the sorting in one edit, they would've been conflicted by someone else who will also just add the categories, so people often only add the categories. Can you honestly say that you haven't seen that happening?
So even though it's probably the most efficient way to create a list, it's not the only way. By creating the list manually, we count on people to actually take the trouble to post the link to the fanon on the designated page. By doing so, we will know that those people are really interested in helping the fanon portal and, as you put it, "help me help you" or "help me help them." If they are not willing to do those extra clicks to post a link on a page, but they would be willing to easily add the category, well, then you have your answer right there for why they do add the category but not the link.
Btw, general comment, can't we just resume normal talking as I really find this "I'm quoting your exact words" rather aggressive. It seems like we're attacking each other on the exact letter of what we're saying, rather than just disagreeing with each other ^^". Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 09:00, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough – no more quotes. And I guess if a default sort can have the same effect as renaming the categories, then we might as well just do that instead of renaming them.
I’ve seen the UC template on pages marked inactive or discontinued a few times in the past – not very many. I’ve always removed it because the UC template is not allowed to be on those pages. Of course, if the UC template gets deleted that would become a moot point. Anyway, I think that’s getting off track from the main points of this discussion.
Badge-editing should be avoided where it can, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to be avoided “at all costs.” Badge-editing is a bad thing, but there are also good things. Making the right decision about something means weighing the pros and the cons against one another. The needs help category would need a reason to be placed on a page. It can’t just go on anything. If someone’s looking around for pages that need help with something, they may pass through several perfectly fine ones first. If they’re badge-editing, they’ll probably go for the quickest way to get categories on a page without really thinking about it. I think most badge-editors like that would go elsewhere.
On another note, the needs help category currently exists. It may not have the defined role in the policy pages that I think it should have, but technically it could already be added for badge-editing the way you say it might be, but it hasn’t been. It may not be a perfect indicator of what would happen later, but its still worth noting.
The needs help category would not be only for templates such as property, infoboxes or author templates. It would also be for the writing itself and the styling – which can take longer to correct than property and author templates.
It sounds like we agree on the idea of a list of some kind, whether it’s a category or a manually-created list. Like I said, the category is a more efficient way to make the list – of course efficiency isn’t everything. But I don’t agree with the idea of making a manual list for the purpose of making the process longer and more difficult as a test to see if they’re genuine about helping out the fanon portal. I think if someone wants to start getting involved, we should make it as simple as possible for them to do so. When I first joined this site, I did simple things like making comments. My edits came later when I was already used to being on the wiki. If it’s easier for new users with good intentions to open the door and walk in, they’ll be more likely to stick around and make good contributions later. We shouldn’t make it more steps for these users – who could each be active contributors in the future – to help out just because there’s a chance they might add some categories somewhere. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 20:41, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
We are indeed getting of track here as the initial purpose was merely to get on okay for the categorization guide. If there are no more objections, I say we move on with the creation of it and maybe add an extra point to it late, depending on the outcome of this discussion.
If someone is already going to the pages, actively searching for them, then I don't see why it would be so much more difficult for them to also add the link to the page or fix them up immediately when they're at it anyway. Sure, some pages need more help then just the templates, but the majority of pages can be upgraded to the acceptable category by just a few templates and a basic spelling check, you don't even need to change any wording for that.
Okay, that is noted, but I would also like to note with that, that I for one didn't know that category existed and could be added in the first place. I deliberately spoke only for myself, but I doubt it that I am the only one who didn't know that.
A slow start may be true for some, but I for example, hardly left comments when I started here, I immediately started editing, so this really has no point as it will be easy to find examples to support either view.
So let's say for argument's sake, that you history is the most common, as it probably is, then why make "adding a category" a step stone to get acquainted with the fanon portal? I'm more of the mindset "don't touch the categories until you understand the system." People who want to get started with doing simple things can just take a look to the list and start editing then, why begin with a category? Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 20:53, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we have come a long way from the start of this forum. I'm fine with going ahead and creating the guide. Meanwhile we can continue to resolve remaining issues and finish the checklist.
I think there are quite a few cases where the fanon page needs a full revamp on its paragraph structure, grammar or perhaps several small things at once. Here the tag can be useful. Furthermore, the vast majority of new users who badge-edit probably won't know the category exists as it would be mostly used by users who have some understanding of the fanon portal and want to help out.
Even if most new fanon pages just need the right templates, I don't think that will lead to abuse of the needs help category. We have a handful of active users stalking RC regularly and the right templates and categories are typically on the page in less than a minute. We don't need to worry about "needs help" being slapped on a bunch of minor things since those minor things don't last very long. The "needs help" is for the pages with major problems that need some extra time devoted to them.
When I said this would be like a stepping stone, I meant they could help the pages in the category or add the categories if they find a suitable place. As for not touching the categories until you understand the system, I think that's generally true, but that doesn't mean newer users shouldn't touch categories. It didn't take me long to understand the cateories on the fanon pages once I browsed around for a bit. I also agree that people who want to get started should take a look at a list. And the most efficient way to make the list is through the category. I don't see enough detriment to make me think that isn't the best method. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 21:11, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if we can make compromises work as I really do get the plus side of the category as well, so what about this: we add an extra line about the possibility to add the needs help category, but we add some very clear guidelines for when the category is to be added, as I wouldn't want this to be a "you feel like slapping on a template somewhere?" category. The template should be made so that people can specify, like you've mentioned somewhere, what the problem is, like "Fanonhelp|grammar" for -how did you guess?- help with grammar issues. But er... should this really be on the categorization guide? Doesn't it belong better on a "template guide" or something? (which would btw be very useful as well seeing as how not many new users know exactly how to properly add and fill in a template:infobox).

Anyway, in regards to the Fanonhelp template, I would add a section then, explaining that people can slap the template, which would automatically add the "Needs help (fanon)" category, to a page if they see that the page:

  • has some major grammar/spelling issues
  • needs a rewrite

That's about all I got for now. I would make a clear list of reasons for when this template can be applied, to counter needless adding of the category.
I wouldn't use the Fanonhelp template if a page is lacking some templates as those don't even take a minute to add.

How does that sound?

Btw, just a general sidenote now that you mention RC stalkers adding the catgories/templates withing seconds after creation: it should be made the habit to edit a page in one clean edit. I mean by that to just edit the page to add the right templates, the categories and do a spelling check all in once and not first add the categories with that function at the bottom and then go edit the page. Main reason, it's very annoying to be edit conflicted when you've done a check of the entire page, thus took a bit more time, only to find then that you've been conflicted by the adding of one quick category. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:16, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. And yes - it should be in a "template guide" instead of a "categorization guide." I brought it up now since we were talking about a category. If there's a template in the mix and it concerns the layout of the page, it probably belongs elsewhere. I think when this forum finally comes to a close we should do a "Fanon layout guide" forum and set that up with templates, infoboxes, etc. The fanon templates could be another big project, although we've touched on a lot of it already in this forum, which has ventured way beyond its original purpose. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message meRead my fanon) Energy Saga Dragons, Sieges and Volcanoes 00:34, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
Do I dare to say it? Are we actually true arguing over stuff? Not just you and me now, but everyone about everything? Sweet! Kudos to every participant and helper! xD But yes, this forum had the categorizations as a red line, but we touched almost every fanon related issue there was here :-)
Well, looking at the already existing policy pages, I think we should rather make a "Template guide" to explain how every template works and should be filled in and merge the "fanon layout guide" with the already existing "Avatar Wiki:Manual of Style (fanon)" page, which would then be re-written for that purpose if everyone agrees.
Let's wait a few days longer with creating the categorization guide, as it has only been 2 days or so since the proposal was added. Maybe we should officially create the categorization guide at the 1st of January. That way everyone still has a few days to voice remarks and the heavily debated categorization guide gets a cool date to be created on ^^". Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 00:43, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement