I see you create red links. I just wanted to say that its fine. If there is a comic book name that has to be added just add the title and don't worry. I'll be creating articles for all the comic books so it should fix all the red links.
Yes, I know it's fine to implement red links. I just wanted to give heads-up in my edit summary about it, as I knew that either you or I would be creating an article for that comic as well as all the others sooner or later anyway.
I saw the summary, that's why I wanted to message you :P
I'll try to create everything and cover all the comic book list tomorrow. If you got any comic book name in mind that you will create tomorrow for sure just tell me now.
I don't have any plans on creating a specific comic article tomorrow, but if I do decide to, I'll probably just create it anyway. We'll just need to make sure we're not publishing the same articles if that situation comes up.
Yes, I'll be able to rewrite and expand whatever you create as I have been, just know that I might create some, too. I'm not even going to be able to edit much at all until I'm out of school, though, so you're good until about 4:30 PM (EST)-ish.
While policy doesn't encourage the removal of peoples' posts in discussions, the posts on those discussions that I had made were entirely for your answering, so I don't really care. Just remember not to do so again in the future.
Um, I've never really spoken to you before, but if you'd like to add my username to you profile page, knock yourself out. I don't keep any such list myself, so don't be surprised not to see your username there. :P
Since there are a lot of references for the comics to take care of and you're kind of the expert in making the comic references, I was thinking that perhaps you could make a list in a sandbox of how every comic should be referenced and then we can run a bot to take care of it -or a semi-automatic run with AWB to make sure that the ref names etc are in order. Just a thought I'd figured I'd run by you.
That sounds like a great idea! I'll try to make the sandbox later, but I'm in school right now, and technically I'm not even supposed to be on here (my teachers don't understand my addiction to wiki procrastination, so they think I'm typing an MLA term paper. :D)
Cool, I'll add them to that page when I get the time. Also, if all of those comic articles do eventually get their own articles, we'll have to go back and change the links on every article there's a reference. Will that be a task runnable by a bot, or will users have to go around and make more ref fixes? If it will result in us having to go back and fix them manually, I don't think that would me much trouble, either; everyone's getting used to having to add refs now, whether or not they were adept at it before, considering how many changes were required for the quote boxes and now for the comic refs.
Well, the way I see it, it will be easy either way. If we conform the references now to a certain format, it is not hard to task a bot with a "search and change" one link to another.
I think a new template would be best, rather than incorporating it into Cite episode, just so it is clearer. But other than that, I don't see any problem.
I think both versions of the ref citations (the one currently being instated and the one Thai has suggested) are good ones, but I don't see anything wrong with either version; and due to the fact that the current version is currently being added to (or has been added to) the respective comic-related articles already, I see no point in going back and changing them all a second time. Both ways are efficient in showing all known information about the comics, and neither detracts from the article quality, so I'd prefer just leaving them the way they are now and continuing with adding them to the ones that haven't been updated.
I don't really care either way, but I'd just like to point out that the "tedious task" of having to go back and change a name of a reference is not a good reason, as that is something that a bot can take care of in no time -but there is something to be said about it being clearer due to the distinct names and whatnot, I'd just thought I'd point out the easy bot-name-change possibility.
I know it's not a good reason not to go back, so that's why I said that I find both versions equally gratifying to the articles -- to be precise, what I mean was that if it's not disrupting the articles or imposing on them in any way right now, then why go back and change them, in which case there would be no difference from the earlier ref version except that we went back and changed them all over again for no reason? My reason is not that I'd find it tedious, but that I'd find it redundant to do so with absolutely no different output.
Krazykid51 wrote:
why go back and change them, in which case there would be no difference from the earlier ref version except that we went back and changed them all over again for no reason?
For the same reasons we replaced the old episode referencing format, which was the same as the current comics one.
In other words: cleaner on source mode, user-friendlier and easier to update.
I hadn't thought of the difference in input... I'm so used to the current version that I overlooked how others might take to it. I like the idea of having the modified comic template, but how would we categorize what is, say, the "101" of comics? Release date (which not all of them have), order of appearance in The Lost Adventures, or something else? I like the idea of having them in Lost Adventures order, as it would be easier to distinguish instead of sketchy release dates. Also, in the same way that we have standardized episode ref names (like "SiC" for "Skeletons in the Closet", "D" for "The Deserter", etc.), it might be good to standardize the same way with the comics.
So... I wanted to wait awhile for more responses, but are you guys content with leaving things the way they are? 'Cause there hasn't been a real conclusion to this from what I've seen.
I am neutral on this front, really. Changing the reference template to be something like the cite episode one would make it more userfriendly, but at the same time, I doubt that it would be needed more in the future on other pages than it is already being used on. So I'm in favor of the majority ruling, as I don't care. I am just in favor of a harmonized referencing manner.
Oh, forgot to reply. Sorry. Umm, dunno... If I'm the only one pushing for a replacement, which really only means to facilitate the use of said references, then maybe it's not really that pressing.
Krazykid51 also poses a good question, to which frankly I don't have the best answer. I'll leave it to the people who actually use these at the moment. If they're happy with the current format, fine. It's not like it can't be replaced in the future, should it be deemed necessary.
Well, if it would be not too much trouble creating the template, then I would be in favor of adapting the template as that would be a big step forward in regards to userfriendliness, and I guess we could order them chronologically as we have them listed on the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender comics page.
I'll be adding to the sandbox for now. If "ready to be run by bot" means to apply to every comic article on the wiki, then not yet; but if you're asking if the ones currently posted there are ready to be applied to the relevant articles, then after the edit I just made to fix a few little things, then yes, go right ahead and run the bot. Of course, I don't think the bot should be run just yet, as there appears to be a reawakened discussion about whether to employ the different coding. For now, I'll just add the base coding of the refs as they are now.
I wouldn't be running the bot since 1. I don't have one, and 2. I could do it semi-manual with AWB, but since that's not flagged for me, I would flood the IRC as well ^^". I was just asking in general.
What do you mean by "to apply to every comic article on the wiki, then not yet". I was just think of tasking a bot to replace every mention of "Nick Magazine presents, bla" (but then the more accurate version) to the reference you so neatly provided. Or in the case a template would be made, by the template with the right parameters.
WAIT! Scratch what I just said! I'm not done with the ones on that sandbox yet--just noticed there's a "color" parameter on the comic ref template. -.-
Don't worry, I don't think anyone was doing anything yet ^^". Hehe, but good thing that we are compiling them all in a sandbox first. That would've been annoying to go back again to add another parameter yet again.
Oh, for that, I meant that not every comic ref was going to be on that sandbox when the bot got running. And yeah, I know you don't have a bot, I was figuring on Thailog replying again, but I wasn't very clear on addressing him. :P
Do we put the references on that new template as they are on the articles? That is, do we add the references formated within "Comic cite" (templates within a template) or do we add the manually formated references as they are in the Cite episode template?
The definitive ID parameter and to what comic it refers to.
I'm gonna try to add most of the other comics refs through the course of this week to LL's sandbox, starting now. It'll probably work best to do the "template within a template" idea, by copy-pasting the coding in the sandbox into the new, different code that will match the episode refs. I could try adding the IDs for the refs on the sandbox later on, too, if you want me to have a go at it.
The ID's shouldn't be all that hard to harmonize, we just have to make sure that we crosscheck it with the episode abbreviations so that we don't have similar names.
Okay, at the sandbox I've completed all of the comics refs, including the abbreviations. Because I'm not good at coding and am stretched for time, I've simply added the abbreviations as though they were already parts of refs (i.e. "<ref name=whatever the abbreviation>), which you'll both see quite fast right when you visit the sandbox. If there are any exceptional cases concerning the ref abbreviations (like ref abbreviations that are extremely similar to or exactly the same as episode abbreviations and/or extremely similar to or exactly the same as other comic abbreviations) or concerning the info within the refs (confusing information for example), they are noted in blue italics beneath the respective coding. I have almost assuredly made a few mistakes throughout, though ,as I copy-pasted a lot of the coding onto new lines, which opens up the possibility that I overlooked the changing of some parameters on select reference codes. I plan to look over them later, to make sure they all check out OK.
While we're on the topic of tidying up the comic templates, I have another request to help fix things up that will probably be a quick job for you, Thailog:
I was in the midst of creating an article for the first of what will be a slew of comic articles when I thought of how each comic is clearly defined as taking place in as specific order within Book One, Two, or Three by The Lost Adventures. So, would you be able to make a parameter addition to the comic infobox template that allows us to input the color of the infobox, like we do with the episode articles, characters, locations, and basically everywhere else on the wiki?
Secondly, would it also be possible to add a parameter that shows what the number in the series of comics is? Because that sounds a little confusing even to my ears, an example would be how "The Waterbending Master" is labeled as episode "18/61" (with the 61 there being a constant within the coding, not needing to be added manually) in the "episode" parameter of the episode infobox. Instead, however, that parameter for the comics infobox would have a different name, maybe "Comic" to keep it simple?
A problem is that the number of comics is ever-changing, unlike the episodes, and it's unlikely that we'll stop at the end of The Search, meaning that with the current number of known comics (35), that number would have to be changed in the base coding each time a new comic was released. Unless I'm mistaken, though, all that would have to be done is go back to the coding of the template and change the number, right? As in, if there was a new episode of A:TLA, "The Boy in the Iceberg" would change from "1/61" to "1/62", right? My question being, should we just number the comics without an out-of number (like simply putting "1") or just change the out-of number whenever there's a new comic out (like making the first comic "1/35" [the first comic in the series being "Bee Calm" and the last being The Search Part 3] then changing it to "1/36" when a new comic comes out)?
I want to make sure these comic articles are integrated into the wiki with the conformity that the rest of the wiki has going for it, and I think these would work toward that quite nicely.
I have distinct recollection that your coding skills are just about as good as mine, LL. That is to say, where would we be without the code-savvy of this wiki? xD
Krazykid51 wrote:
While we're on the topic of tidying up the comic templates, I have another request to help fix things up that will probably be a quick job for you, Thailog:
I was in the midst of creating an article for the first of what will be a slew of comic articles when I thought of how each comic is clearly defined as taking place in as specific order within Book One, Two, or Three by The Lost Adventures. So, would you be able to make a parameter addition to the comic infobox template that allows us to input the color of the infobox, like we do with the episode articles, characters, locations, and basically everywhere else on the wiki?
BAM! Took me hours of research to work that magic. ;)
Krazykid51 wrote:
Secondly, would it also be possible to add a parameter that shows what the number in the series of comics is? Because that sounds a little confusing even to my ears, an example would be how "The Waterbending Master" is labeled as episode "18/61" (with the 61 there being a constant within the coding, not needing to be added manually) in the "episode" parameter of the episode infobox. Instead, however, that parameter for the comics infobox would have a different name, maybe "Comic" to keep it simple?
Where do you want it? (I think the more accurate term would be "issue".)
Cool, the new code looks good! For the other part, what does "Where do you want it" mean, exactly? And yeah, "issue" sounds like it would be a good name for it. Thanks again!
I do not believe that the italicizing should warrant a perfectly fine ref to be replaced with something that gives barely any information about the comic. Sure it is italicized, though we can easily add the quote marks around that to indicate that it is not a book -and in general, people don't know when to italicize or use the quote marks anyway. The point of a reference is to be as complete as possible. What you changed it to is imo a step back instead of a fix for betterment.
What I plan to do (just in case you posted this before seeing my post on your wall) is propose in the War Room the creation of a new template for short comics. You know how on most comic refs it'll say "Nick Magazine presents, ..."? The "Rebound" comic is in the same category as all of those comic refs, because it is a short story; not a book. The book one, yes, italicizes, and although not many people know how that rule works for italics vs quotes, we're a wiki; we shouldn't compromise for simplicity. Instead, we should make a template similar to the one used for books like The Search, only this one fits for short comics (i.e. it would put quotes around the title automatically, be able to note the authors and artists [unlike the current system for short comics refs], input the specific publisher [currently only Dark Horse and Nick, but still useful), and all-in-all encompass more information).
As I replied to your message, instead of proposing to create a new reference, just as Thai or KMP to change the current ref template code so that it will still automatically italicize the reference, but it will allow users to unitalicize it by adding the italicize markers around the title. As such, it would've been easier to let the references stand and just adapt the italicizing which would then have automatically been fixed with the code change as opposed to now having to go back to all those references and change them again.
True, having to go back and change them all again will be tedious, but I hadn't considered asking KMP or Thai to just change the coding instead of the creation of a new template, which was the first idea that came to mind. I'll message KMP (he appears to be on more often, so he'll probably see it sooner) about changing the coding on the cite book template.
I think he'll be the fastest option at this our indeed as it is a more favorable hour for Australians atm than Europeans :-)
Btw, why remove the organizations link in that article? It is common to include such general links and it is relevant since that page is an organization. As explained in the summary as well, the organizations link is just as relevant as a link to the FN for example, if perhaps not even more. The relevance of a link is very subjective, so when there are two sides to view this by, I don't see any harm in letting the link stand, it's not bothering anyone and could be of use to some.
Yeah, those sorts of refs have been getting on my policy-wired nerves lately. The ambiguity of relevance concerning links is one I discovered by reading up on the MoS for a refresher recently; is there any way that that area of policy could be specified upon? Linking like that is very common throughout this wiki, yes, but what if it's in fact a little excessive?
The problem with "clarifying" policy, is that you are also restricting your edit window, cause then there are more senseless rules that need to be taken in order. Personally, and I do want to emphasize that this is just my personal opinion on the matter and in no way an official interpretation or whatever, I find that such links are not a bother. A plethora of links is usually only present in the introduction paragraph, and in general, I would say that it is a good thing to link pages to one another with many links.
If we would go by "only relevant links" then we would have a lot of debate about "what it relevant", as in the case of such links, that boils down to one's personal knowledge about the subject at hand and their need to have such links there. I believe we should look at this "issue" from an Avatar-n00bs pov and that means, imo, that a lot of links are a plus rather than a nuisance.
I'd love to say I knew, but I'm only well-versed about the online games. No matter how much I'm willing to pay for canonical books, there's no way I'd buy any of those console games. In all honesty, I'm not much of a gamer outside of my own very small circle of interest when it comes to video games. I prefer to use my resources on more long-lasting expenditures... not counting my tendency to overspend on food, of course.
On the matter of the edit's truth, though, I wouldn't be against leaving it there as it appears that neither of us knows if it's correct or not, but there is almost nothing referenced there anyway. It's not our place to say that any of that article is incorrect, including that edit, as we're not experienced in that area. Is there anyone else on the wiki with whom you could access that edit's (as well as maybe the entire article's) accuracy?
Later on I might scour the game's official website for things that could use sources in the wiki's article. There are also a few more external links there that might be useful for my cause.
Krazykid51 wrote:
I wouldn't be against leaving it there as it appears that neither of us knows if it's correct or not, but there is almost nothing referenced there anyway. It's not our place to say that any of that article is incorrect, including that edit, as we're not experienced in that area.
^ Basically why I didn't undo it but asked you :-) I don't know anything of the games, but since I've often seen you make game-related edits, I figured that you might know. Though since you don't, and I don't either, it can stay.
I don't know anyone who truly knows the games, that's also why that are such underdeveloped pages on here. No one knows, thus no once cares to edit them.
They're very much appreciated, especially since it's a very under-edited "space" of the wiki :-) Besides, I'm just one of those nerds that always backlogs the RC, thus there are hardly any edits that pass me by. So remember, I always see what you're up to :-p
My pleasure. Though, I should probably add it only took me maybe two minutes to find that video. But I'll accept any kudos that comes my way regardless.
@KK - youtube videos are normally the best resource for the video game articles, since few people have a copy of the games to corroborate anything, and the online walkthroughs aren't detailed enough to be used.
@LL - I just wanted to clarify I hadn't spent ages looking for it. But thank you anyway.
Haha, thanks. I'm honestly a little embarrassed by my poor little fanon that didn't make it past... twelve chapters? I think that was it. Not only is it depressing that school got in the way of my finishing it, but also that as I lost more and more time to school and yet tried at the same time to type up new material, my writing quality also declined. It became so rushed at about chapter six that when I decide to pick up my fanon again, I think I'll just rewrite all the current chapters first, that way there isn't such a sharp contrast between the first few chapters and the rest to come.
I actually had tried something like that with my old fanon, I wrote chapter 1, released it, wrote chapter 2, released it, re wrote chapter 1 based on feedback, released it, wrote chapter 3, released it and so on and so forth. But it became annoying by the time i finished rewriting chapter 1. I don't think it would matter. I mean, look at ARG. There is a huge difference between book 1 & book 2 in ES for him but it's fine.