Me and a few other Administrators had a discussion about that here. We ultimately decided to leave the pages separate. You're free to join that discussion though and give your own opinion if you think differently or disagree with our consensus.
That looks to have been a mistake on my end, Ja'loja should be italicized as should all episode names mentioned in the articles. We haven't enforced that consistently until now so I must've forgotten about it.
I'd have no problem trying to crack down on that though.
Just occured to me, but you might want to check this personal blog page I created in the summer. It contains a lot of great oddball information and it can probably help you flesh out the trivia sections of your pages, or even build on the articles themselves.
Yeah, I figured. There's tons of unique, unadded information on that page though, so feel free to comb it for interesting material.
By the way, I was thinking today: If all goes well, we should be getting a big influx of enthusiastic fans in a few weeks when the show premieres! Obviously, many of them will be enthusiastic new fans who just want to help and not necessarilly well acquainted with our rules. I think we should temporarily go easy on new editors so that people feel like their contributions are meaningful, even if what they add will eventually have to be deleted or fixed through significant edits. If they create a page that isn't up to standards or perhaps add some poorly edited info, we can overlook it if it's not a horrible mistake. Then, hopefully, a few of them will love helping out enough that they will stick around for the long-term. What do you think?
That's a good idea, it's very likely that once Season 2 comes out the Wiki Activity is going to skyrocket. As someone's who's been on the receiving end of a local staff member being hard of me for being a new editor/not understanding policy, more lax enforcement might be a good direction for us to go. At least temporarily.
There are a few minor editing errors that are usually really easy to fix and don't often upset the original contributor in question. Like changing past tense to present tense, commonwealth english to american english, etc. Two actions that most often provoke hostilities are when we either revert an edit entirely or delete a page. According to the Manual of Style we shouldn't be undoing edits for anything less than a last case scenario anyway.
Tolerating the existence of pages for characters that lack information or don't warrant their own article is going to be different for sure. But if it's only a short term thing to account for Season 2 hype and we'll leave redirects once the dust settles I think it's definitely doable.
Would it be worth having a "Welcome new editors!" page ready ahead of season 2 starting?
I've wanted to make a specialized default welcome message that links to our guideline pages like the Elder Scrolls Wiki has for awhile now. Unfortunately though, I'm not quite adept enough at coding to implement it so the idea never really gained traction.
I'm sure I could ask FishTank about it. If anyone would have the know how to do something like that it would be him.
I'm also onboard with doing polls on the front page. As a matter of fact, I think the front page in general needs a little bit of an overhaul. Especially once Season 2 comes along Talla will need a link with the rest of the main cast members and I'd be interested in nominating Alara Kitan to be a featured article.
Featured articles are another great idea. Maybe make them a monthly thing, so we aren't speeding through all the articles, and it gives everyone to make and improve pages. We would need to make a set of criteria so everyone knew what standards a page would need to be at to be nominated/made a Featured Article. These standards would have to be above and beyond the criteria for a regular page.
I also support doing more to implement featured articles. When it comes to selecting nominations though I'm of the belief that as long as an article follows the established Manual of Style policies it can be nominated.
Where UnionPoint is coming from makes sense but the thing is terms like "considered to excel" and "exceed our ordinary standards" are subjective terms. How would we officially define those? Having the best grammar? Having a lot of pictures? Having the most content? Not having that much content but still being able to convey a lot of information? There's no really clear answer to these questions and for that reason, I think our only standard for selecting a featured page should be whatever the community wants.
Sometimes pages resonate with people and work for reasons that aren't clearly defined. There would be clearly some standards though obviously as it would need to follow the Manual, but once it does that I think the selection should rest in the hands of the community and popular vote.
I completely agree in that I think any article that passes the muster of the Manual can be nominated, but not necessarily win.
All of those are fantastic suggestions for standards about which articles should be featured, by the way! Grammar should be as close to perfect as possible. Concisely written but still capturing all important information. A tasteful number of photos. Since we're only featuring one article a month, each should have substantial information to read. By featuring an article, we are essentially telling the world that this article is our absolute best research, writing, and editing.
A popular vote would be a good idea and perhaps we can set up polls for that.
I never thought about it like that, you raise interesting points. Perhaps those suggestions can be a examples of what we look for in featured article nominations, but like many other things on the Wiki there can be exceptions when necessary.
How do you feel about doing a new article each month? Because, alternatively, we could have a featured article stay on the front as page as long as nothing else gets nominated and approved to replace it. Like what we have been currently doing with John LaMarr. I'm not trying to take a stance but just suggesting we have options for how to implement this.
We could organise a set of critera for what a Featured Article should be and put it to the community to get consensus on it. That way everyone gets the chance to get some input on the matter, plus informs everyone that we're planning on doing Featured Articles in the future.
Union: your suggestions are great.
Blizzard: What about doing it this way: Open nominations for Featured Article at the start of the month. Let people submit which articles they want to be featured artcile. Last week of the month, close nomnations and make the last poll of the month is "What do you want next month's featured article to be?"
I was giving it some thought, and I think we should have 1 featured article each week or perhaps biweekly while the show is on the air, and then 1 featured article a month in the off-season. When you consider all the cast and crew pages, I think we have more than enough solid candidates for Featured Articles.
In order to make that work we'd have to create a rough draft sometime soon of the guidelines a featured article must adhere to and then at the first week of January we can host the first nomination consensus.
Are we all on the same page that the guidelines will consist of what UnionPoint talked about before?
>Grammar should be as close to perfect as possible. >Concisely written but still capturing all important information. >A tasteful number of photos. >[Since we're only featuring one article a month,] each should have substantial information to read. >By featuring an article, we are essentially telling the world that this article is our absolute best research, writing, and editing.
>1 article per week on season, 1 article per month
I've added most of the agreed upon policies, but I think our frequency of nominating pages is something we need to discuss a little bit.
Because the more I'm thinking about it, the more I'm not totally on board with the idea of nominating a new article for the front page every week or month on a routine basis. It might be easier on the community and ourselves to allow nominations to occur whenever a spectacular page comes about and gets nominated. Which could happen in two weeks or six months from now.
Forcing us to always replace what's been selected for the front page every week might not be a very sustainable model since despite our Wiki having over a hundred pages a lot of them don't follow the current guidelines we agreed on.
One of the reasons why I was for monthly featured articles, over weekly. is that it'd give people a chance to work on articles to get them to Featured Article level of quality.
As a suggestion, how about we start the Featured Article system/program as a trial without a strict schedule? This'll let everyone know it's going on and that they can do work on getting articles to the level required level. Plus, it'll give us a chance to work out any unexpected kinks in the guidelines and work on process of nominating/voting an article to be Featured Article.
Once we've got the whole system going and running smoothly, we can consider moving to a regular schedule.
A structured schedule for this I don't think would be necessary at all actually. If the community wants to nominate an article they can regardless of the time of month/week/year. If they don't then the latest featured article will just stay on the front page until further notice.
Unless you or UnionPoint are strongly in favor of doing the opposite, this is the way I think we should do featured articles for the foreseeable future.
Hi, Blizzard, I was wondering why you deleted the pages for the Navarian and Bruidian ambassadors. This passed your "rule of thumb" (per the Manual of Style) as it has easily enough non-redundant information to fill more than a page. Your stated reason for deleting the pages, that the information can be found in the episode page, is not a reason found in the Manual of Style.
I get that we both want to keep the place neat and tidy and without trivial pages like Kermit the Frog, but going around deleting major characters that are crucial to the episode plot is probably not in the best interest of the Wiki. If anything, we are missing pages for significant characters here. Also, I would really appreciate it if you let me know when you delete pages I spent significant amounts of time creating and researching.
I'm sorry this probably came off a bit sharply worded, but I am a bit shocked the pages were erased.
The reason that the pages were deleted is not necessarily because they lacked content but because nothing was stated or explained within their material that couldn't just be placed somewhere else.
What I mean by that is, the Navarian and Bruidian ambassadors are barely characters. They have little to no distinct personalities, they have no scenes by themselves or away from a member of the main cast, they don't even have actual names. Both of them are just plot devices meant to move the Ed-Kelly-Darulio love triangle forward. There's nothing to really say about them that isn't already covered by the species pages or episode summaries. As a matter of fact, the majority of what you wrote for both pages was copied & pasted onto Navarian and Bruidian respectively. Your efforts weren't completely wasted if that's what you're worried about.
Look, I get where you're coming from and I understand why you made the pages. But there was a reason I neglected to ever redlink their names despite Cupid's Dagger coming out almost a year ago. While technically pages for them follow the word requirement they have no real reason to exist, and considering they'll almost certainly never appear in the series again, probably never will.
Hopefully this makes sense to you. I'm open to continue discussing this and hashing out what pages we should or shouldn't look into moving forward, but as of right now I feel as though I made the right call deleting them.
Thanks for replying. While your explanation is cogent, there are two very serious problems.
First, it is not rooted in our Manual of Style. If you want to delete pages for reasons not provided by the Manual, then we should come to a consensus as a community on what those reasons are.
Second, you are applying your strict standards inconsistently. Under your criteria, is there a reason you made edits to the page Palovis instead of deleting it? That should have been as clear a case for deletion as any. In fact, very few characters in the entire show would meet all of the elements you listed.
The Manual of Style is intentionally worded and engineered to value the spirit of law over letter of law. That's why it's made clear in the Purpose section that these are simply General Guidelines that can be altered or ignored if context demands it. The Navarian and Bruidian ambassadors pages, while their situations weren't specifically listed, still in principle went against the greater policy and aspect of our Wiki's culture (that me and FishTank worked hard to implement) that the website should only host pages with relevant and fruitful information. If you believe in general that is a flawed way to run the community, feel free to start a discussion on that, but I wasn't violating any designated rules by deleting the ambassador pages.
Palovis' page has information we wouldn't be able to fit anywhere else on the Wiki. He serves a purpose in the show that isn't directly tied into the plot (being a crew member who waters plants that Ed can't remember the name of). That isn't something that could be easily mentioned on the New Dimensions episode summary or Ed Mercer's character page. Unlike the Navarian and Bruidian ambassadors who are simply plot devices, Palovis is an actually distinctive (albeit minor) contribution to the series.
I would also like to mention that if there are articles on the Wiki that are designed similarly to the Ambassador pages, that isn't necessarily proof the Ambassador pages should stay, more so that those particular articles need to be culled as well. Sometimes they're created before certain policies or attitudes are fully implemented and then forgotten about until months later. There could be cases of that which I do believe should be dealt with.
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at your explanation because I had believed that relying on the "Purpose" exception was to be done in extraordinary circumstances, not employed for sweeping deletions of pages: Calivon zoo administrator, Kelvic man, Navarian ambassador, Bruidian ambassador, ....
Your explanation behind Palovis generates more problems than it solves, and I can illustrate that by comparing Palovis to Kermit the Frog.
First, it still strikes to the heart of the originally stated problem that you inconsistently apply the rules. All of the information we know about Palovis measures less than one page. Kermit the Frog is about the same length. One of these pages was deleted; one was not.
Second, relying on your exceptions to page deletion doesn't help us. (A) Palovis and Kermit the Frog have information we wouldn't be able to fit anywhere else on the Wiki. (B) Both serve a purpose that isn't directly tied into the plot (Palovis waters plants; Kermit is Ed's prized desk ornament and inspires "leadership").
Of course I'm not arguing to revive the old Kermit the Frog page. I think we all agree that we never needed the page. And I get that you don't want the Wiki overrun with trivial articles, but Navarian ambassador and Bruidian ambassador are not trivial articles. More surprisingly, if we take your position to its logical end we would have to delete high priority pages like Steve Newton. All of Steve's scenes are to further the plot along and all of his scenes are described in episode summaries. If we want to maintain a high quality Wiki, I suggest that there is another way to do it.
Well, technically these particular instances are not based on exceptions. The Manual of Style does have an addendum prohibiting pages of that nature from being created: "Pages should only contain information that is relevant and desirable to document. Just because a character, location, or concept might've appeared or did something in a certain episode does not warrant it being written on their designated page. Only add what is necessary to understanding the history and role the article's subject plays within the series." We've done this before in the past as you yourself mention with Calivon Zoo Administrator and Kelvic Man. The former of which I actually created and had to delete shortly after in adherence with the guideline.
Once again, I would like to address your claims:
I was defending Palovis by insisting it had information potentially worth documenting. Unlike Navarian and Bruidian ambassador who inherently do not need pages. I took no stance on the fact that it violated another separate guideline of being too short. The reason that I didn't cull it right off the bat was due to the assumption that User:GrahamKennedy was going to eventually add more content to it that would satisfy the word requirement. You and I both do that sometimes where we make short pages and then finish them up later. Needless to say, Kennedy has yet to return and likely won't finish the page. But this all happened in early August, nearly three months ago. My neglecting it is not meant to be a double standard but merely the phenomenon I mentioned before of certain pages slipping through the cracks. If does end up being deleted it will be for being too short, not because Palovis inherently didn't need a page.
There is a significant difference between Kermit the Frog and Palovis. Kermit's biography can be found on Wikipedia or a Muppets Wiki, he doesn't need to be documented here not because he necessarily lacks information but because he has nothing to do with the Orville and everything else about him can be learned elsewhere. The one Orville related piece of info on him can be simply placed in Ed Mercer's trivia section. This is exactly what I said about the ambassador pages, the information you placed on them can easily just be put onto a Cupid's Dagger episode summary or the Navarian and Bruidian species articles. Which is inevitably what I did.
Steve Newton fits every single criteria mentioned before. He has a name, he has scenes by himself or about himself, and most importantly his page contains information that's exclusive to him and couldn't be added easily within something else. The first paragraph of his history section is all about his early life with Harrison Payne and the following has an entire section dedicated to his personality. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near that for the ambassadors. Because Steve Newton is a character and they're plot devices.
I don't want to upset you and I'm sorry since you seem so passionate about this, but I'm not seeing any real reasons why pages for the Navarian and Bruidian need to exist. Almost everything you wrote was saved and added to the formally incomplete species articles, no matter what we do here your efforts will not have been in vein and will have helped the Wiki.
"Relevant and desirable" are subjective terms, and you deleting versus me creating these pages is just a battle of two administrators with different opinions about what is relevant and desirable. However, I do think you'll agree that both ambassadors played fundamental roles in the episode Cupid's Dagger. They were the sole reason war nearly broke out in the Navarian-Bruidian conflict and a primary cause of many other problems, like Claire holding Yaphit hostage.
Moving along, I agree with your distinction of Kermit the Frog. He is a trivial subject in the world of The Orville, and he shouldn't get a dedicated page for that reason. But the ambassadors are hardly trivial. In fact, they are crucial instruments of the story --- so many things would not have happened were they not present.
You jump between two different standards behind deleting of a page. In one standard, you stated that pages are to be created and kept if they (a) have information you would not find elsewhere on the Wiki, and (b) serve a purpose not directly tied to the plot. My point was that your set of criteria here was overbroad, and pages like Steve Newton would inevitably face the ax because of that.
You employed your second standard when I pointed that out. Under the other standard, character pages are to be kept if the character (a) has a name, (b) has scenes alone, and (c) bears exclusive information. Steve satisfies (a) and (c), but not (b). The closest thing to (b) is a scene with Alara Kitan over comscanners.
Which standard are we supposed to use? None of these standards are rooted in the Manual of Style, even though you did provide a standard, which was the 'page-length metric.' Of all of the elements in your two new standards, having a name is the weakest. Plenty of great characters have no revealed name because the credits usually decline to give one. That doesn't mean that wonderful characters like Man in the Red Robe and Kelvic Man, each with vibrant personalities that move the plot along, are somehow irrelevant. In fact, it's the opposite. All of the characters except for Palovis are highly relevant to the story. None of what happened in their respective episodes could have happened without that character to push the protagonists along. Except for Palovis...
Anyway, I can tell that you care about this as well. I just don't think deleting pages for reasons you've never disclosed without notifying us is the way to do things. The only time I deleted pages of yours were for reasons in stated in the Manual of Style (page length) and I immediately told you on your Wall. If we cannot see eye-to-eye here then I think a community-based discussion about our standards for creating, maintaining, and deleting pages will be highly beneficial.
Revamping the Manual of Style I don't think would be necessary. The reason why many of these policies are left ambiguous is due to the knowledge that we wouldn't be able to foresee all future situations that might arise over the years which could violate the principles the Manual laid out (Remember Spirit of Law - Word of Law). The check and balance of this being that the community has the power to question or force the staff to undo any decisions that might've made in regards to page deletion. Which is exactly how I believe we should proceed here.
Our discussion is going in circles. I pleaded my case, you pleaded yours. As per the Manual (and General Guidelines to a lesser extent) the next step would be to create a community consensus and have the other members read over our comments here and ultimately decide if the ambassador pages should stay or not. Someone I'd like to especially give input would be User:FishTank as he theorized a huge chunk of the current paradigm this Wiki uses as its standard for pages.
If the community believes the Navarian and Bruidian ambassadors need pages and disagree with what I've said here, I will back down and restore them as they were. However, likewise, if they do agree with me I assume you'll handle it the same. Either way, the community should get the final say over this matter.
That's not strong enough evidence to acknowledge on the Wiki page. Pria disappeared & Ed responded by saying time is open to change. There was no ambiguity there or any implication that Pria lied about the Orville's original fate.
"Subtext" alone, suffice to say, isn't a reason to add speculation onto the articles.
Hi, there. It's great that you're working on pages, adding important material as we are in that long stretch before the next season. However, I had to delete the page on Alien Bartender as it does not conform to the Manual of Style - specifically, the rules regarding page length. If you feel strongly that there is enough material, perhaps we can revisit it. Take care.
My rationale being the Alien Bartender, despite being unnamed, is a recurring character that appears throughout the series and would have enough information to fill out our necessary content quota (one page worth of content). I will not undelete the page unless my opinion gains more support with the community, but I would like to discuss this in more detail.
It feels really awkward deleting a page created by a fellow admin but here goes, haha:
I'm open to correction, but Alien Bartender appears twice and only briefly - grabbing drinks from the bar and turning around. It's on par with some other recurring, red-link characters like Technician Jennings. As it stood, the article was much shorter than some deleted articles like Man in Hat (the Kelvic man in a nefolo in Majority Rule). If you feel you can write a page's worth of content, I would be happy to discuss this more.
It's not awkward, pages can be deleted as your discretion, but the decision can be challenged by any user. You're handling this exactly as you should.
With that said though, I did put a stub template there for a reason. I had plans to expand his history section and add more to the page. It wouldn't have been a particularly large article but I think once it was done there would've been enough to justify its own existence.
If you still don't think even with that, the page would be necessary I can back down on this matter.
I'm certainly open to being proven wrong, but at the moment, I do not see how the information could reach a page without repeating information or writing overly long sentences simply for the sake of length.
I imported all the information from those pages to Ranks and Positions and then deleted everything else as it was redundant. We discussed a couple weeks ago that a lot of the pages weren't long enough to warrant their articles and would be better off just getting a section on Ranks and Positions.
If there are a few pages that you think are relevant and should be undeleted, I'd be willing to hear about it.
Feel free to remove some the links if think they;re distracting. I just replaced all the redlinks with a redirect to Ranks and Positions. I think it works well for some pages instead of not linking anything at all.
Hey Blizzard, this is Ellen at The Paley Center for Media. Seth and most of the cast of The Orville will be in person at PaleyFest LA on March 17. We wanted to make sure that your community knows about this great cast event.
We have made some Google Museum art for the cast, which they and the show have shared. I wanted to share it here for your community (maybe as a blog post?), but wanted to check in with you first since it's a little different from general fan posting. We also have a video from when Seth and the cast were at PaleyFest Previews last year that I thought would be of interest to your followers. Let me know if these are ok to share with your community. Thanks! Ellen
Thank you for contacting us with this offer! What you're suggesting is entirely welcomed in our community. We pride ourselves on not just being a database for information, but a community for fans to also converse and share their passion for The Orville.
My only request would be that any Paleyfest related content be posted within the Blogs & Discuss sections of the Wiki, as the Editing Space is mostly reserved for the documentation of in-universe events, the only notable exception being biographies for Cast and Crew members.
Everything else on the Wiki though is completely open for any Paleyfest posts you'd want to share with us.
Noting the relevancy of this event, I'd even be willing to advertise some of this on the Wiki's front page in order to help spread the word for any Orville fans that might be interested.
If there's anything else you need or questions you might have, my message wall is always open.
Hi Blizzard, this is all great to hear. We have a similar philosophy that outreach be in service to the fan. We never want a fan to miss an opportunity for something he or she might really want to be a part of, just because they didn't hear about it. Do you need us to make a piece of art to put on the wiki front page? If yes, please send the spec dimensions for what we should deliver.
About the artwork, you can do whatever is the most convenient on your end. Art, a blog, video, etc. Any of those would work great. The specs aren't super important on Mediawiki sites like FANDOM, we can alter it to fit best with the page by editing in source mode. Don't worry about it!