Man, I've undone again your edit. Please, do not do that again. The purpose of listing my interviews (and my future reviews) is for my main page design (that I'm still producing). If I'm wrong in making new categories, please enlighten me if there's a policy/war-room-decision about this that I don't know about (I'm using this wiki since january, so I don't know if there are any).
You can create a page in your userspace, like a sandbox, where you can make a list of all your interviews. Policy says this about blog categories:
"No adding of categories unless the category is marked otherwise: When creating blog posts, users generally should not add any categories to their blog post. (Category:Blog posts is added by default.) The Fanon blog posts category is an exception since its addition is mandatory for all blogs created with a fanon purpose. However, as a guide, the adding of the Avatar news category, Site news category, and any category relating to Reviews should be left to an administrator."
Fanon blogs don't have the user name (fanon) category attached to it, that category is only added to fanon pages to keep things nicely organized on the swiftly expanding fanon portal. Sometimes a fanon related blog has the category of the related fanon attached to it, but those cases are rare.
Anyway, categories aren't supposed to created for everything someone does on the wiki. Like I said above, the fanon portal is the exception to that as it is much larger and harder to keep track of things and to keep things organized. For example, the chapters of HotN have their own category because that category is in turn categorized under the general category Chapters (fanon), keeping everything linked to each other. However, when it comes to organizing blog posts, such intricate categorization isn't necessary. Categorizing the FRS and FFF reviews under their respective categories is enough to guide everyone to the blog posts of each usergroup. Further dividing that category up in more subcategories is only unnecessary making the categorization tree longer. If people want to see who wrote a specific review/interview, they have plenty of other ways to find that, like 1. going to the user group's main page, as each conducted review/interview is listed behind the reviewer/interviewer's name and 2. each blog post states clearly who wrote it. Adding the extra category would just be unnecessary.
As Dc already suggested, if the category is necessary for your main page design, you could just tweak the design to be able to work from a linked sandbox instead of a linked category page.
Hey Ratava, I'm sorry, but that category has been removed again. It really isn't necessary to create a personal category just for your blog posts. I understand that it works with your coding design, but I'm afraid you'll just have to look for another way of making that coding work then, because there is no real reason why that category should be there. If you would be the exception and the category was allowed to stay, what would hold back other users then to create a personal blog category as well? And then before we know it, the user blog categories would be everywhere, while most of them would maybe hold one blog.
I really understand that you want to clearly list your own reviews and combine that nicely, but why not just make a sandbox and list them there, or do what the FRS has done and change to main page to list the reviews under each reviewer. There really is no need for the category, so please stop adding it, as it will be removed each time again. I hope you see why we're doing that.
I know I cannot be the exception, I don't want to be, though; what I'm wanting is a way to filter my own blog posts (since today there isn't a way to do that using a category). I have a doubt: a category page only serves for listing? So as you and DC have suggested, a sandbox could do the same? (If I list in a sandbox only my interviews, then it's from this sandbox that the code will feed/take as source?) Sorry, but I don't mean any harm, you know that I'm an image/visual guy, and not only the information/content kind of one. I just want to be aware not to do mistakes like these (I think that this latter times I've been a pain in the S, >_<, because for other users they seem quite unimportant, but to me design/layout is the most important eye-catcher on any kind of page).
Design is certainly important, but designs only purpose is to attract readers, not dominate the page and divert the attention of the reader away from the content. Keeping things simple isn't always a bad thing.
Well, I think simple things aren't simplistic things. Keeping things simple is very good, but keeping them simple, just for not wanting to complex them a little, is a simplistic move, I dare not like very much. It seems as we were affraid of changings/development. And this safety feeling is kind of odd and sounds fake to me. I want to improve my capabilities (as in usage of coding, and I've learnt a lot). By the way, you didn't answer my doubt I'm in a blind spot here...
We're not afraid of changing things codewise here. We just always keep the readability in mind. Take your blog for example: it looks very snazzy, no one can ever doubt that. You put a lot of work to it and it looks nice, but the scroll thing isn't the easiest to read, so we'd never implement such things on articles or whatever, if you get where I'm going at.
And yes, you can list your blogs in a sandbox and link from there, I don't see any problems with that. I am no coder, if you really want to be sure, talk to 888, Vulmen, or Thailog. Maybe Dc knows as well.
xD the scroll is still a problem (I am trying to fix that, I've put scrolls for each the interviewer/interviwee, but they still didn't work properly =/) I got your point about it. To make text easy to be read.
If I list the blogs manually, they'll work as a bloglist? With the bloglist tag and all?
I'm not a coder either... I'm much more like a pen-and-paper designer... xD It's not something to be proud of, since ideas, planing and sketches aren't the active part of the implement itself. I want to become more the experimental kind of guy, whose ideas really can come into reality, as practical and proper actions. Planing and sketching ideas don't get someone so far, if these ideas won't get tangible in somehow.