FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Was the vote decided whether the perfect fan made copies of the symbols from TV were allowed or not? If the vote's not done, when will it be done?

      Loading editor
    • No, see Thread:81471#10:

      My current thought is to have another week, say through the 25th, of general discussion and then try to write out a proposed amended policy. Afterwards, have another week or so to discuss it before final decision is made.
        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • This is something I've been meaning to ask for awhile, now.

    Should there be a separate entry in the episodes templates for characters who appear in archive footage? IMO, flashback shouldn't be used for an archive footage role, like it is. A flashback is seeing something that hasn't already been shown in the show.... Like Becca in The Warriors Will or the events of Red Queen and Pike teaching the kids earth skills, that's a flashback. Not archive footage.

      Loading editor
    • It's arguable both ways. Personally, I don't think archive footage should be counted toward character appearances since cast members don't even get credited for archive footage appearances.

      I've always found "credit only" within the character's appearances to be odd. The character wasn't credited, the actor/actress was. From character perspective, it's "appeared" (in present, past, hallucination, etc), "mentioned", or "absent". From cast perspective, it's two factors: 1) "appeared", "archive footage", "absent" and 2) "credited" or "uncredited".

      But we combine both perspectives into a single table. So we generally ignore credit except in the very specific case of actor/actress being credited in an episode where character neither appears nor is mentioned. All the other situations of credit or no credit, we generally ignore. I.e. we do not differentiate between if cast member was credited when character was mentioned, so why do we differentiate when character is absent? We also don't differentiate between "new flashback" and "archive footage" – both are flashbacks and from character perspective it matters very little vs from cast member perspective it matters a lot (since it influences if they get credited & if they get paid).

      Another odd group are dead characters. On Character Appearances page we have a separate label for cases where corpse appears but character died in a previous episode. We also group City of Light appearances with hallucination since a digital recreation is not equivalent to a live person. But on character pages, this all gets grouped into "appears" label.

      We can always argue that we can split appearance labels into more distinct labels, but 1) when is too many, 2) what is the precedence, and 3) how can we implement the change with least disturbance to the wiki.

      So, this is my long way of saying, yeah, we could split "new flashback" and "archive footage" but there's a lot more involved in this subject, so it'd be best to get community input.

        Loading editor
    • You sure went into detail! Let's ask the community then? However in most cases on wiki's the adminstrators have the final say, not the community.

        Loading editor
    • A lot of smaller wikis are benevolent dictatorship but larger wikis are more democratically run. There's a reason why on Wikipedia gaining admin rights is described as "given the mop": the biggest duty of admins is cleanup (reverting vandalism, mediating disagreements, enforcing policy, etc). This wiki falls somewhere in between, but officially the admins are not "in charge".

      Yeah, another thing for the suggestion board. It'd be nice if everyone got together once a week for an hour and all subjects could be quickly debated & decided, but with users all over the world & with various obligations, it's not happening.

        Loading editor
    • The idea of this wiki being on the same page as Wikipedia scares me...... and brings horrible memories.....

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • User:Eugene.bae.902 has uploaded a fanmade image and named Wonkru symbol that is definatlely not fanmade.jpg......

      Loading editor
    • View all 13 replies
    • Eugene.bae.902 wrote: I'm not telling them to change it, I'm telling them to answer the question. It's their choice. They were the ones who put fanmade pictures in the Locations page.

      What pictures?

        Loading editor
    • Hi guys. 

      So I'm assuming the images added in Locations that created a dispute are; 


      The 100 Map (Locations) .png


      LocationsRealLifeMap2.jpg


      LocationsRealLifeMap.jpg

      So here is some context;

      if I recall correctly at the time they were added we didn't have a good reference regarding the different locations and their real-life equivalent. Pictures we had as screencaps from the show weren't entirely clear, so fans went out and tried to puzzle the locations together. That's how the picutres above came into existence.

      You're correct, neither of these images are official. They were created as an addition to the images we got in the show so that us fans could better match the locations from the show to the real world. At the time this was useful. Now, they might be deemed unnecessary. Therefore, if anyone wishes for these fanmade images to be deleted, I'd agree to that no problem.

      If I understand it correctly the second matter is also in regards to fanmade images being added to the wiki in the future?

      For that issue I can't give a clear answer, and community census would be needed. The thing is that we don't allow gifs on the wiki for copyright issues (because gifmakers generally don't like their gifs to be taken). We should think in a similar way towards other fan images, like the Wonkru logo I've seen put up for debate.

      Since this logo is in-universe (in contrary to a map of real world locations), I wouldn't put a fanmade image of it on this wiki. If the show doesn't release one, then refer to the clearest images you have on screencaps. But this wiki isn't in the business of making logos of clans themselves. 

      I would like to clarify that just because I added those pictures, and I happen to be an admin, that it's not automatically correct. I can have errors in judgement of what is good content for the wiki too. In general my edits will always be to make information more clear to the people who visit this wiki. But I can be wrong too. For that reason it's so important that members of the community point it out, and that we reach a consensus together. 

      So I thank Janus for creating the suggestion on the suggestion board. If needed we will review the subject and see if we can clarify things in the wiki's policy regarding updating images for the future.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Dear Janus100,

    Can we make a page called "Eligius/Crime and Punishment"?

      Loading editor
    • At this time, I'd say there is no evidence of needing such a page, same as for Wonkru. Once a section grows too large in base page, that's the time to create a subpage. Since currently there isn't even a section for crime & punishment on base page, there's no reason for subpage.

      That said, I think we've gotten enough information to create a separate group page for the prisoners (instead of keeping everything on the corporation page). I'd support a new page named "Eligius Prisoners" or "Eligius IV Prisoners".

        Loading editor
    • So, which one should I do?

        Loading editor
    • Let the community decide, Thread:81307.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey Janus,

    Please take a look at some issue I have with Eugene.bae.902. I updated character histories for Octavia and Raven; and he reverted them claiming that the stories were wrong without pointing out what's wrong with them.

    I'm not saying my edits are perfect and flawless but I would appreciate if he corrects any errors he notices and makes any needed rewording without reverting the entire edit.

    Thanks!

      Loading editor
    • I've reverted the two removals and responded in Thread:81155. I'll get notifications for any responses on that thread, but if you need further assistance, feel free to contact me.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you very much for taking care of that!

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • The Last has been confirmed to call The Warriors Will. Can you please update all of the templates?

    EDIT: Added source http://www.ksitetv.com/the-100/the-100-spoiler-photos-the-warriors-will/181105/

      Loading editor
  • I know we're only supposed to add only information that comes from the show but if his real name is Jonathan then it's kinda dumb not to add it just because it wasn't said in the show, for example Callie's death never was said or even mentionned in any episode but there's still the information on the wiki

    I just find it weird that we can't use his name, if a wiki was made on anyone they'd wish their real name was used even if they never used it (probably a bad example but still)

      Loading editor
      • We do include "Jonathan" twice in the article already, including in the lead, so the information is far from excluded. Yeah, we include Callie's death and we include Jonathan, so there is no discrepancy.
      • His "real" name according to the show is "John" which is used many times including in all five season. "Jonathan" is used a grand total of zero times. One tweet does not overrule a name used across five seasons.
      • We mention "Jonathan" in primary article. But in general, we use the name used in the show, which is John Murphy, an all articles. This prevents confusion for readers and is also a standard practice across wikis.
      • "if a wiki was made on anyone they'd wish their real name was used" - False.
        1. What is a "real" name? I'm going to assume you're talking about a person's full birth name but telling someone their preferred name isn't their "real" name is nonsense and disrespectful.
        2. I assume you're speaking for yourself because there are plenty of people who'd want a different name used other than their full birth name.
        3. Based on my knowledge as a long time Wikipedia contributor, the name of the article is the person's preferred public name (with a few exceptions). In the majority of cases, a person's full birth name is stated somewhere in the article, but there are cases where a person's birth name is intentionally excluded from articles.
        4. Standard wiki practice is name articles by most commonly used name.
        Loading editor
    • Fine then I understand, I just thought like a wikia was supposed to be exact not just the name that is used but not full. Yes people can totally prefer another name than the one they have but like I said if Murphy had an ID then it would be Jonathan because Jason didn't say he didn't like Jonathan. Well a name is a name, your "real" name is the name you were given by your parents or the one that you chose when you changed it legally, but I didn't mean that in a mean way^^

      However I think we should trust more what Jason says and tweets. He is really comitted to his show and only tells the truth and doesn't change his mind after he does (except when it involvrs cast members wanting to leave the show etc...)

      And a whole other thing, I just realized that the Dark Year page had been deleted but I can't find the topic or message on an admin's message wall that explained why so I would like to understand^^ I know it was a stub but I was thinking that with 5x11 we could add much more information and it looks like it's a big part of Wonkru's story, but anyway I haven't read the whole explaination so I can't really argue^^

      By the way I apologize if any of my messages seem angry that's never my goal sometimes I just loose myself in my arguments^^

        Loading editor
    • As I said, standard wiki practice is name articles by most commonly used name. Full name as article title has never been the requirement. Full name is still listed in article, so details aren't being lost. "John Murphy" is his "real" name and the wiki is being "exact".

      Go to Wikipedia and convinces them to rename "Bill Clinton" to "William Clinton". Also convince them rename "Brad Pitt" to "William Pitt" (btw, "Brad" is short for "Bradley" which is Pitt's middle name, so article not only chooses to use middle name instead of his "real" name, it also chooses to use short form of name, which again according to use is not "real"). If you can successfully get those two articles moved, then you'll have a case for your "real"/"exact" name article title argument.

      A couple other examples: The MCU wiki chooses to use character's superhero name instead of "real" name, e.g. article is titled "Iron Man" not "Anthony Stark". Actor Michael Caine's wikipedia article was named "Michael Caine" since 2002 (when the page was created). However, his legal name until 2016 was "Maurice Micklewhite". That means wiki intentionally choose to use a "fake"/stage name over his "real"/legal name even though his legal name was known and listed on the page.

      I think you're confusing legal name with "real" name. A legal name is a "real" name, but it's not the only "real" name. Someone named William who chooses to go by Bill, "Bill" is his real name and so is "William". I also know plenty of women who choose to go by their maiden name at work even though they chose to legally change their name when they married. Are you saying they're lying? Another example is a dual citizen who has different legal names in their different countries.

      "if Murphy had an ID then it would be Jonathan" - wrong, go back to the pilot, you'll see his name is listed as John Murphy in the Ark's official files.

      I never said JR lied, I said, "One tweet does not overrule a name used across five seasons." That has nothing to do with trusting JR, it has to do with material presented on the show taking precedence over material presented in external sources. Also, minor detail since we're trying to be exact, JR never said Murphy doesn't like Jonathan, he said that no one calls Murphy that.

      Dark year was basically an empty page and, more importantly, failed to meet this wiki's policy for page creation. Wonkru page's history section is sufficient. If 5x11 adds so much info that it cannot be contained within Wonkru page, then that would be a more appropriate time for page creation.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Ihy

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Can you deleted that page? I don’t think it necessary to created on this wiki yet. Maybe later, but I think it not good time to have it on wiki because nothing important about those two. And nothing teased of romantic relationship between those two. If their relationship become strong like other characters, we could create that page. Can that page be deleted for now? Here the link: https://the100.wikia.com/wiki/Raven_and_Shaw

      Loading editor
    • Relationship pages are not only for romantic pairs. They can be created for friendship or antagonistic relationships.

      That said, the page has been around for almost a month and no one seems interested in adding actual content. I've marked the page for deletion, but I'll give anyone who wants to save it a week or two to show that it shouldn't be deleted.

        Loading editor
    • Right, I know it only been for friendship or antagonist, I was typing without notice. Sorry about that. I fine with deletion. Because their relationship could developing in future. I’m just confusing little bit because no one really adding actual content for a months of someone create this page. I understand.

        Loading editor
    • In general, the wiki should avoid having too many stub pages. I think a lot of relationship pages have potential, just no one interested in putting in the work to give them content. But I'd rather have a stub relationship page than a stub cast/crew page (e.g. Mike Dopud). Anyway, if you see a stub page that's been around for at least a couple days and you think it's a candidate for deletion, feel free to add the {{delete}} tag to tell others that the page needs to be improved or it's liable to get deleted.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • There's something wrong with the page. Nothing shows past the "Quotes" section.

      Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message