Wikitokyo:Break room/brentdax

From Wikitokyo, the unofficial Megatokyo wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

The break room is for general suggestions about Wikitokyo. Want to add a new type of content? Think something should be organized differently? Need to ask a question about how the site works? This is the place.

To start a new discussion, click this link, fill in the "Subject" box with something appropriate, type your message in the big box, and put four tildes (~~~~) after it to sign and date your message. To reply to an existing discussion, hit the appropriate "edit section" link and add a colon (to indent), your reply, and four tildes.


Contents

[edit section] Proposed Category: "Events"

I think that a category covering "Story Events" (Story Arcs?) would be useful.

This category would cover the major events that have occurred in the story so far. For example (in no particular order, and by no means complete):

  • The Fanboy Riot
  • Largo vs. Ping at Mosh Mosh Revolution
  • Largo vs. Miho at Moe Moe Ball
  • The Gameru Incident
  • Asmodeus kidnaps Seraphim

This should be enough to convey the idea.

Good Idea? Or have I been hitting the catnip a bit hard lately?

- Kuroneko Tar

66.25.184.147 04:58, 25 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Sounds good to me. Arcs seem to naturally fit into chapters, giving us a nice progression (Volume, Chapter, Arc, Strip) we can use to organize things. —Brent Dax 09:39, 25 Apr 2005 (PDT)
I'm thinking maybe a good hirearchy here would be Chapter -> Arc -> Event -> Strip. This lets us say things like, "The 'earthquake' incident was part of the fanboy riot arc in chapter 5." I don't think categorizing based on volumes is helpful because the only connection between which chapters go in which volume is the amount of stuff that can reasonably fit in a book. — CountAlpicola 16:51, 25 Apr 2005 (PDT)
Sounds like a good idea. I have been writing on a summary for Chapter 0 and it is much too long. With a hierarchy like the summary for the chapter could just outline the arc and main events, the rest can be covered in a summary for each arc and/or event. I agree with CountAlpicola that the Volumes should be treated differently - they are an external constraint and have nothing to do with the story. — Dapete 03:18, 26 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Consensus seems to be that this is an idea worth pursuing. Please see Talk:Chapter 0 to discuss how to implement this idea. —Brent Dax 00:01, 2 May 2005 (PDT)

How about elements that cover several chapters. I was thinking of doing something on Kimiko's coffee pot of doom, but that runs over quite a lot of chapters.

You might want to make it an object instead of an event, if most of what you're talking about is going to be tied back to the pot itself and its many applications. —CountAlpicola 19:00, Jun 23, 2005 (PDT)

~~ What do you consider a good topic header? "Coffe pot of doom" is kind of long ^_^ Would Fred object to linking back to the Megagear site, or would that be a rule braker here?

Perhaps Coffee pot? And, no, I don't see any reason to not link to Megagear. However, I'd rather not have links to specific products because if Fred decides to change his inventory, we'll suddenly need to be hunting dead links. &mdashCountAlpicola 22:42, Jun 23, 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Discussion or Talk?

The 'discussion' tab leads to a 'talk' page. Is this a Bad Thing? Should I change it to say 'talk'? —Brent Dax 21:07, 25 Apr 2005 (PDT)

I have no idea which is better, really. For people new to this stuff, 'talk' seems to make more sense. Thing is, I notice Wikipedia calls it 'discussion' as we do here, so I assume that's the normal thing for people who are familiar with wiki. I say go with whatever is going to be least confusing in the long term, but can't really say which alternative that is. — CountAlpicola 21:16, 25 Apr 2005 (PDT)
Actually, talk pages are unique to MediaWiki. (Most other wikis encourage you to comment right on the page, which is messy but simple.) I think the other skins have a "talk" link—it's only MonoBook that calls it "discussion". Could be wrong, though. —Brent Dax 12:27, 26 Apr 2005 (PDT)

I made the switch to "talk". For future reference, the trick is to change MediaWiki:talk. —Brent Dax 04:44, 27 Apr 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Book information, yes or no?

Since noone has answered the question I asked in the thread on the MT forums, I raise the question whether the book information I had on my wiki should be included here. We already have Fred Gallagher and Dominic Nguyen articles, so real-life stuff is wanted, and BrentDax did mention Volumes in the Proposed Category: "Events" discussion above, but I'd like to get some sort of go-ahead order. -- Dapete 07:48, 26 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Sounds okay to me. —Brent Dax 12:28, 26 Apr 2005 (PDT)
Phew, it's all in. You might want to change Wikitokyo:Book sources, I already tried to improve it, but somehow don't like it - rewriting might be a good idea. I also don't like the presentation of the book pages - I tried a few variations for small boxes, but And probably you'll want to see how I added the new stuff on the Main Page. -- Dapete 05:07, Apr 27, 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Connecting related pages

I've heard a couple complaints about the big boxes and extra categories involved in e.g. Conscience Enforcement Agency. Basically, the complaint is that the categories are extraneous and the boxes are large and ugly. My current thinking is that one or the other is necessary to connect similar pages together, but both is somewhat excessive; and that categories are probably the right choice because they're less intrusive. Agree? Disagree? Have a better proposal? —Brent Dax 17:18, 26 Apr 2005 (PDT)

If people complain, at least the categories can go. I created them here just because I had them on my wiki. But I certainly like having some navigational boxes to help finding related information. If size is a problem with those, perhaps we can make them smaller (probably not as small as Template:comic-fairuse). I played with stylesheets, but didn't manage to get anything usable. -- Dapete 07:43, Apr 27, 2005 (PDT)
I actually really hate those boxes. The categories field is good enough and it's far less intrusive. —Phydeaux 18:53, Apr 28, 2005 (PDT)
Ok, I don't like the boxes, at all. I find them distracting, ugly, way too big, and just plain unnecessary. If people want to navigate, there are plenty of other ways to do it. The wiki is, or will be by the time it's done, aggressively cross linked. The articles and reference lists are at least as comprehensive as the navigation boxes without the overhead of ugliness, and without a significant drop in clarity.
Categories are the better way to do this. Building groups of pages is what categories are designed for, after all. I think they do an excellent job of it. They're unobtrusive, self-updating, automatically maintained, and easy to deal with. Also, unless you plan to box everything, categories will be more comprehensive, because they're more automatic and ubiquitous.
Categories were designed for this job. Let's let them do what they're meant for, and leave the boxes behind. — CountAlpicola 19:10, Apr 28, 2005 (PDT)

Looks like I'm outnumbered... so, if everyone finds the boxes so bad, let's get rid of them. I've ignored them completely for now, because I don't know whether to just take them out, or make excessive use of categories. Just to avoid doing changes twice… I realize what can be done is empty the templates—so we get rid of the boxes—so I'll start on that. — Dapete 09:39, 30 Apr 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Stubs, What Is and Isn't

As I was working on the Matsui article, I clicked through to the Sayuri article and realized there's an entire category for stubs. I feel that some of these articles, while short, aren't really stubs. It seems to me that if we've listed everything we know about a character, event, etc., even if it's not much, that article is complete and should not be listed as a stub. For example, Daitou Gakuen Attached Middle School and 1 Yen Arcade are about as complete as it gets, based on what we know now. These shouldn't be stubs. Sayuri and Asako, however, should be stubs because those entries could be fleshed out quite a bit more than they are now. Thoughts? —Phydeaux 19:30, May 7, 2005 (PDT)

I think the purpose of stub is to say "I put in everything I know", so readers see this is not necessarily a complete article, and other editors know where contributions are needed. E.g. I left Daitou Gakuen Attached Middle School as a stub because I didn't know whether anybody else might know more. If you say it's all, it shouldn't be a stub anymore. We just have to make sure there is peer review of stubs. I assume all of the "regulars" scan the recent changes. Perhaps we need to keep an eye on the stubs in particular?
If we go along that line, the help text when creating a new page should be changed to ask for using {{stub}} "if you know there is more information, or suspect that others may know more" or something like that, rather than "if you only wrote a couple sentences". — Dapete 06:29, 9 May 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] The Front Page

I have a question, why do you link the MTWiki on the front page when they have no links to here and openly profess to hating the strip (in their help section)? It doesn't make a lot of sense to send someone who's actually interested in the strip to that place. It's certainly not like they have any respect for Fred, the strip or anyone who might be interested in discussing the story. WhiteKnight

It's a preemptive answer to the question "where do I put all the stuff that's SD-related but not really within this wiki's mission?"
Except to the extent that the power to protect, unprotect, delete, and undelete pages lies only with sysops, a wiki is a blank slate. Unless the sysops are completely unreasonable, you don't have to like them—you just have to keep to the intended content and tone.
By the way, they have interwiki links here as [[WT:foo]], just as we have interwiki links to them as [[Comm:foo]]. The extent to which they are or aren't used merely reflects on their separate goals. —Brent Dax (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2005 (PDT)

It's just that they are inherently hostile and defensive about their concept of community and rather than provide a link here they simply provide (this stub instead). There is no good faith effort on their part to reciprocate. WhiteKnight

Then edit in a link, and if you want ask the admins to add one to the front page. I'm not particularly concerned with their reciprocation or lack thereof; the link on the front page is for the convenience of this wiki's users. —Brent Dax (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2005 (PDT) 
Well that site is down now anyway so i belive the line should be removed 

Ahze85283(Unregistered)65.244.227.194 21:35, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

[edit section] Spambots

It appears that the 'bots are seeking the word "Help". Maybe you should consider locking the Help:Contents page.

It is done, and the culprits have been blocked. Thanks for fighting the good fight. —Brent Dax (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Category:Food

This seems rather specialized. Should it be merged into Category:Objects, perhaps? —Brent Dax (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2005 (PDT)

If someone were to add Pie, Spaghetti, Bento and Whiskey (I think that’s all there was regarding food) the category would have more entries than Category:Real people or Category:Anna_Miller's. Maybe Food could be made a sub-category in Category:Objects rather than scraping it altogether. Rosentredere 00:43, May 29, 2005 (PDT)
Seconded. If I knew anything intelligent to say re the foods you mentioned, I'd be this "someone"… — Dapete 10:22, 30 May 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Sonoda family

I tried to fulfil the wish for a picture on the article for the Sonoda family, by using the design of the character overview. Does anybody think there's too much text below the pictures? I'm sort of OK with it but perhaps you aren't… — Dapete 10:32, 30 May 2005 (PDT)

Looks Ok to me, but how about arranging the pictures in a more family-tree like fashion with Meimi and Masamichi in the top line and Yuki/Yuuji below? Rosentredere 11:14, May 30, 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Wikipedia is a valuable resource

Hey guys, there's a reason we have interwiki links to Wikipedia. Over the course of a few days, I've redirected several links to Wikipedia that previously pointed to nonexistent pages here. The most recent one of these was a link on Fred's page that pointed to architecture.

If there's nothing uniquely Megatokyan that needs to be said about a subject, please direct the link to Wikipedia's pages or elsewhere on the net. If you think we'd have something highly MT relevant to say about the subject (such as in the cases of beer and magical girls), then, by all means, feel free to point the link back towards our own wiki. Remember, though: Wikipedia is a valuable resource. Don't be afraid to use it. —Phydeaux 05:33, May 31, 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Proposed Category: "anime/game references"

Megatokyo refers to quite a few things, including Nadesico, Haibane Renmei, and Neverwinter Nights. Knowledge of Haibane Renmei is especially useful for the recent Circuity Omake. Also, though newbies often come up with "Ping = Chobits", Fred has stated that he drew from To Heart and NukuNuku. There's also the Miho-Miyu connection, though I don't remember if Fred has stated that himself. I think it would be worthwhile for such a category. I know that such comparisons, especially to Chobits or Love Hina, might draw ire, but my idea is to elucidate less known things such as To Heart. Jhiend 20:20, Jul 13, 2005 (PDT)

I don’t know if it has to be a category. As far as I remember only Ping and Meimi have “official” inspirations. Such information should of course be noted in the corresponding article (its in Meimis but not in Pings) but I fear a category could become overbroad, with half of the characters in it for some “well, it reminds me of x”-reason. Maybe an article Cultural references in Megatokyo would be better.Rosentredere 23:57, Jul 13, 2005 (PDT)
I agree, I see difficulties to decide what is really about references (may they be to anime, manga, games, or anything else) and what isn't. This could just be bundled in a central Cultural references article, linking to things like Grand Theft Colo and Canada, and serving as a detail link for the character articles. — dapete 04:14, 14 Jul 2005 (PDT)
I too am in this boat. --Junair Wiare 17:09, Jul 14, 2005 (PDT)
Looks like this one's going nowhere, and I agree with that conclusion. Where someone or something in MT has a known reference history, it should be noted on the individual pages, as has been said. Common but wrong assumptions about reference history should probably be noted there as well, if only in passing. This means a lot of pages should include references, and almost every reference will properly appear on a page. Trying to categorize where we mention cultural references would be like adding a category that includes every page in the wiki; a plainly useless gesture. —CountAlpicola 22:43, Jul 14, 2005 (PDT)
I think the anime references are somewhat...limited. I've been watching Serial Experiments Lain recently (excuse the lack of a link, I'm feeling lazy) and I think there are many more ties than just Largo's perpencity to work on computers naked. The whole setup that Largo creates is very similar to the monster Lain has in her bedroom. Largo's experiences in the "digital plane" are also reminicient of Lain. I also see a strong connection between Lain and Miho. Of course, I could also be crazy. If I'm not, I'll get around to writing something in that section. But first, I would appreciate some verification on my hypotheses. 
Jaxvon 23:47, Jul 12, 2006 (PDT)

[edit section] Thank you, everyone...

...for keeping this wiki active for the last couple months. I know I've been AWOL, and unfortunately it'll stay that way until September, but I really appreciate that the community (and especially the other sysops) have continued expanding this site. Well done, everybody! —Brent Dax (talk) 01:03, 11 Aug 2005 (PDT)

[edit section] Spambot attacks

With all of the spambots we've had hammering this place recently, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to set this place to force login before allowing pages to be edited. It kinda defeats the freedom I wanted this place to have, but considering Rosentredere is the only one who seems to be adding anything these days, I can't see that it hurts it too much. Anyway, to anyone who still bothers looking at this place, is there any good reason to not force user login?

Also, thanks to everyone who's been helping clean the spam out of this place. I appreciate it. —CountAlpicola 19:03, Dec 14, 2005 (PST)

MTWiki has had forced login since the beginning (makes sense being a community site) and I don't really see anything wrong with it. Also cuts down on our spam. If you want to keep anonymous edits, I suggest adding a captcha check for anonymous edits. The benefits outweigh the annoyance, and it allows those users who wish to remain anonymous to stay anonymous. -- TheStupidOne 09:20, Dec 15, 2005 (PST)
I agree to disallow IP edits. Unlike Wikipedia, where the main problem is vandalism (and vandals are not easily stopped just by forcing them to log in), we have a spambots problem. Although it might stop the occasional visitor from contributing, it would take the burden away from the sysops to patrol this wiki all the time. —da Pete (ノート) 09:39, 15 Dec 2005 (PST)

[edit section] 4chan

It looks like the 4chan guys who spammed the MT forums recently found their way here. We've just had User:ANONYMOUS upload images and articles pointing out how "emo" Fred is. User:Happynegro changed the Main Page to include a documentation of Blurred, an ecchi/hentai site Fred allegedly had. (I couldn't confirm the "evidence"; what remains are rumors, something on Wikipedia and drawings that could be Fred's. Also it was highly POV and, obviously, in the wrong place.) Anyway, I blocked them and deleted their contributions. Hereby documented for great justice transparency. —da Pete (ばか) 06:40, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

Actually I checked again and confirmed some of the evidence. Although I'm not keen on promoting the existance of Blurred, I also don't want to create the impression I'm lying to promote it didn't. —da Pete (ばか) 07:02, 10 May 2006 (PDT)
Gosh, these trolls are getting bothersome. Suffice it to say, Blurred isn't on topic in this wiki, so there's no reason at all to not remove it. Add to that Fred's wishes that Blurred not be spread around, and I find no problem with taking aggressive action. Not to mention that this was obviously another failed troll anyway. —CountAlpicola 07:28, May 10, 2006 (PDT)
Alpicola, you seem to have misunderstood us /b/tards. We are NOT trolls. We simply hate hypocrisy, and if Piro would have admitted that he was an ecchi/hentai artist, then we wouldn't make such a fuss about it. Instead, Piro tried to censor his past, and censorship is unforgivable to us /b/tards.



Anonymous neither forgives, nor forgets.
Go ahead and revert this. We can capture it and continue showing it to the world.
I used to like MT. I used to think it was a good webcomic. Now the only reason I've taken up arms with /b/tards is because of the hypocrisy being generated. Blurred is out and everywhere, and it's not just 4chan that's spreading the word, nor is it the stereotypical /b/tard. If you think that everyone with another opinion is just some overcaffeinated high school kid with a penchant for guro, thus from /b/, you'd be quite wrong.
Like I said, go ahead and delete this. Continue following someone else's ideals and never going your own way. It is not the Ruri porn we quest for, it is exposing flaws. Blurred is the center of a standalone complex: the apparent gathering of individuals with no connection for a common purpose and no other goal. Many people who participated in tracking down and exposing the concrete evidence that proves the existence of Blurred did so solely because Cortana talked down about 4chan.
We are the grassroots that bring change. We are the U-bend under the sink of society. You can try to clean us up, but we collect again. We are those who think that site mods went the way of Silicon Graphics. You can assert authority and we will circumvent it. You can impose rules and we will break them. You can delete us and we will return. We are 4chan, iichan, 420chan, OnionChan, wtfux, and 0chan. We are /b/, /a/, /m/, /k/, and letters not yet used. We are nameless gatherers - and we have power beyond a deletion option. In the open fields of the Internet, we are nowhere and everywhere - there is no stopping, controlling, coercing, or intruding upon us. We are limitless. You can join us and it will end the troubles you have faced, or you can stand against us and never truly win. So long as we have printers, paper, ink, and we know of bookstores where Megatokyo is sold, you will not be able to escape the truth. We will make the truth known and it will either be ruin or nothing at all. The censorship will end, or we will end the censorship.
Viva /b/, viva forum invasions, and viva the proliferation of Blurred!
You guys could have at least indented your text properly. —CountAlpicola 17:13, May 10, 2006 (PDT)
The funniest thing is this whole claim of 'censorship'. Fred never 'censored' blurred, or anything else. He took down HIS version of the site on HIS server. That's all. I don't remember 'talking down' about 4chan, either. I wouldn't have been an admin and helped out 4chan quite a bit if I didn't like the place and the idea of it in general. Cortana 19:11, May 10, 2006 (PDT)


[edit section] L33T Concern

I've noticed we have 3 L33t topics, including my own(Which I created before noticing the other two). The topics are L33tsp33k, L33T in Megatokyo and L33t Nekkid Skillz. I will continue to work on L33T in Megatokyo for the time being but perhaps we should merge them into one? L33t Nekkid Skillz doesn't seem it has enough info that could be built on to be a stand-alone article anyway. Just pointing this out. ~L33T G4M3R 5K1LLZ
I would recommend merging l33tsp33k and L33T in Megatokyo as much as practical, then deleting the latter. For transliterations, we can refer to wikipedia, rather than maintaining our own. L33t Nekkid Skillz is likely to never be a big article, but it is distinct from the other two in that it addresses different things, and so should likely be left as-is. —CountAlpicola 19:43, Sep 23, 2006 (PDT)
Alright, I'll merge them. Just wondering, which one should I merge to, both are good names for the subject and I'll just turn the one not used into a redirect so any links can still work and so if anyone wanted to read that article they would get redirected to the correct one. L33T G4M3R 5K1LLZ
Retrieved from "http://wikitokyo.mt-talk.net/wiki/Wikitokyo:Break_room/brentdax"
Personal tools
quick reference